Wrongness

Apparently, to most people, atheism is "wrong". According to a University of Minnesota study.

Atheists "are seen as a threat to the American way of life by a large portion of the American public," according to a study by Penny Edgell, a sociologist at the University of Minnesota.

In a recent NEWSWEEK Poll, Americans said they believed in God by a margin of 92 to 6—only 2 percent answered "don't know"—and only 37 percent said they'd be willing to vote for an atheist for president. (That's down from 49 percent in a 1999 Gallup poll—which also found that more Americans would vote for a homosexual than an atheist.)

It's obvious that the American public wouldn't trust an atheist to be the best candidate for the Presidency of the United States. What picture does this paint for all of us? Atheists are distrusted. That's a no-brainer. What makes somebody, who believes in the Christian god, more trust-worthy? It's this; believers think that atheists are off their "moral rocker". As if atheists are incapable of discerning right from wrong. But if you claim to have Jesus in your life then I guess you're pretty much a shoe-in.

Never mind all that. Let's get back to the study and the poll. As most Christians believe that atheists are wrong. What does this say about Christians? To me it says, "I am better than you."; "Follow me and you will find the way to Jesus and live a true and better upright life than you live now."; "What you atheists believe is immoral and not conducive to the betterment of humankind."; etc, etc...

I really don't understand how it's immoral. How, by my very existence, can I not contribute anything of merit to humanity. That's bullshit. I do plenty outside of this blog. I get great satisfaction from employing my abilities to help those that can't help themselves. Not because I'm doing "gods work", but because of my own actions and deeds. My choice to do so carries with it a knowing that I live my life "in the right"; without accepting that a god had anything to do with it.

This is the conundrum. Accepting that a god influences our actions and influences our daily affairs. That's not free will. That's not free thought. Christians (and many other faithfuls) just can't come to grips with this. They live their lives believing that god has had a plan for them and has orchestrated their existence since the beginning of time. Having a religious faith is NOT free will. It's NOT free thinking. They are brought up to believe in one particular ideology and in most cases without question. Me, I've been brought up to believe nothing of the sort.

What's "wrong"? What's wrong is believing that other people are wrong, if whatever ideology you have been indoctrinated under disagrees with the "other" viewpoint. That's wrong. I know this will get turned around on me, such is the circular logic.

But hear this: the goal of religion is to use the tool of indoctrination to stamp out dissidence, to make everyone of "one mind", to make everybody conform to the status quo. What better way to manipulate the masses? If we all fall lock-step with these power plays then the majority rules and the minority gets trampled and silenced.

I AM IN THE MINORITY! Gladly. I AM different, I AM individual. I'm not so sure that the sheep really understand this. Because they are willing to follow [insert ideology] without being given the chance to believe it otherwise. Granted, I would hazard a guess that there are those who have been offered the chance to believe otherwise, yet give up the chance to think about it for themselves.

Does this thinking make me wrong? No, most Christians might say no, but of course it "does" and they are lying to themselves. They think they are being open-minded when in reality they can't stand and often despise and hate atheists. The study and polling data spells it out clearly. It is a litmus test.

If you don't believe in god you are shit and unworthy to participate in society.

On a side note. I've stumbled upon another blog saying that "the atheist movement" should not be compartmentalized to so-called "rational" discourse, because in essence we all (atheists) express our opinions in different ways.

I, for one, am happy to hear that there is no litmus test to have a "rational" discourse. I communicate how I see fit. I express myself how I see fit.

Guess what? If I feel somebody needs to shut the fuck up; or shove "it" up their fucking ass. I'll have no qualms of saying so. Not that I ever did. LOL.

Call me uncouth. Call me barbaric. Call me "wrong". Call me Larro.

Why I'm Here

I'm an atheist and I don't care about the argument of whether a god or god's exist or not. My premise is that I don't want to sit here and argue bullshit that gets thrown back and forth. The same bullshit over and over. It may have been pertinent the first time around, but after a while it gets really old. Because neither on one side or the other is going to convince either party otherwise.

This is why I much prefer discussing current events. For this simple reason: whatever happened 1000, 2000 or 200,000 years ago is history. What can we as human beings; Muslims, Christians, Jews, bushmen, Slavs, Finns, Mayans, Taoists, Buddhists, atheists and whatever -ists and -ans are left; do to move forward and do our best to fashion a future that best describes the nearest we can come to a utopia.

The only way I see this coming about is strict secular policy that in and of itself is very loose with liberty. Of course there has to be a balance, but in my opinion a moral code dictated by religious ideology has no part in my interpretation. Because a moral code can just as easily be found in tribes with no organized religion whatsoever. A clue that religious morality has always been obsolete, since it's inception. Back to this balance; human beings know what is right and wrong, and Christians (or any other faith for that matter) have absolutely no monopoly or infallibility in this department...

A departure: If religious moralists think that their code is THE right one. The RIGHT way to live. How do they account for (or view) non-believers (as apparently a god delivered unto whatever prophet THE right codes that we should all live by)? When we as non-believers don't believe in this, it's obvious we are viewed as being "in the wrong". How wrong? Evil? I guess so, because what I've heard in these post comments is that we non-believers are absolutely deserving of hell and eternal suffering. And possibly my wife (if she were a Christian) because it's shameful to marry an atheist (that's a whole other post coming).

I don't want to post about the metaphysical. On occasion, yes, I will engage in this discussion but I prefer to stay away from it (because "I don't care" for it). Please, when it warrants the premise of the post stick to the topic, as it gets kinda stale rehashing the existence of the Cosmic McMuffin over and over again (kudos to my good and personal friend Bob for coining that term. And I double-dare any of you fundies to comment there. You'll get nothing but...well, I'll let him speak for himself.)

Let's get back to "goodness" and "badness". Zoroastrianism really skewed the notion of human nature and it's sense of morality. There's no such and easy thing as the black and white of morality. Never has been. Seems to me that most devout faithful have a notion of what is right and wrong for everybody on this earth. I don't see it that way.
Here I really hope to lead into the root of my concerns. What is "right" and "wrong". What is the punishment for being "wrong"? And NO I don't refer to some mythical nether-world. What laws should dictate a punishment for being morally wrong? Who's laws? What society? Does this apply to me (as an unbeliever) just because I don't ascribe to these effervescent laws? I suppose if I were a blasphemer I should have my tongue cut out of my head, huh? Is that a rightful punishment? Is it justified?

If some of you answered yes, then you do not believe in freedom and liberty. According to me should you be jailed and sentenced for hate crimes? No. Not for speech, not for speaking your mind. Actions speak louder than words. That's why we need laws specifically targeted towards acts of this kind.

I'm ending this by saying that everybody has a true right (in my book) to say whatever the hell they want to say. But if it infringes on true liberty those words shall never be made law.

Thank you. 4 beers.

Larro: A Brief Introduction

I'm going to begin this first post by drawing on a comment by Shaun. This started out as a comment on Blasphemy: A Blameless Crime?, but I found it turning out to be an excellent introduction for myself. The comment starts as follows:

Shaun, you said, "[I/Larro] think/hope/wish whatever, that God does not exist"

To be honest I could really care less about that. Really!

I've given up quite a long time ago about debating the existence of a god with the faithful. Not that I don't have any argument against it, but this: It's the whole point of faith. I can't argue against someones personal faith. If somebody feels so strongly in a belief, I am not even going to waste my breathe in convincing them otherwise.

Here is my position. I'm not out to debunk anybodies faith (as much as I relish the thought; and on occasion I may succumb to this). What I am about are, the social issues and how people of faith affect the current political and civil debate. This is ultimately what concerns me: this unseen and oft-times obfuscated interjection of religion and politics affects me as well as the next person. This is why atheists need to get their shit together and REALLY organize.

I guess what I am saying is that I am a very, very, very strict secularist. Don't get me wrong I am still a civil libertarian to a degree as well; kids can still pray in school of their own accord, I have no problem with that. Yes, contrary to bullshit arguments that there is NO prayer allowed in school, prayer itself is still allowed in schools here in the U.S.

I believe in freedom and liberty for all. If anybody wants to really know anymore about my views then feel free to ask and I will try to answer to the best of my ability.