What We Need
Posted on April 28, 2009, in article, Athiesm, rant, Rev. Paul, with 13 CommentsTo make this easy
god = whatever your religion’s deity
satan = whatever your religion’s evil person
bible = whatever your religion’s holiest book
Religion is a wonderful thing, that everybody should embrace and believe.
4000 years ago.
But this is 2009. And the vital role religion once played has been replaced by science. The truth is we don’t need an explanation for where thunder comes from or why sky twinkles at night anymore. And we certainly don’t need moral guidance from sources that time and time again prove to be corrupt, hate filled, and narrow minded.
What we need is a scientific community willing to step up to the plate. One willing to be proactive in politics, in the local community, and one on one with the people. What we need is a populous willing to pitch in, in the name of science. What we need are more television programs with scientists explaining where we are and where we could go. What we need are regular local meetings where the scientific community listens to the questions the people have, and then comes back with real answers. What we need are organized efforts in politics to counter the pro-religious influence. What we need is rational thinking based alternatives to churches, religious holidays, bibles, missionaries, private schools, and community support groups.
What we need is to show that religion isn’t the best answer, or the safe answer. It is the exact opposite! It holds you back and keeps you in fear. it shuts your mind to the world as it really is. and limits your ability to live happy, or benefit humanity.
What we need are role models in high places and small. Willing to stand up and say “I don’t believe. And I don’t need to. I am an intelligent and moral person because I choose to be”. What we need is to show how many we are, and the good we do everyday. To let believers know that they are welcome with us, and give them the tools and support to believe in themselves for a change.
Thank You
or
Sorry
Reverend Paul J. McMaster
Leave Your Comment →
13 Comments
TravCav
04.28.2009
Not only do we not need religion for our morals, today’s morals are far superior than the outdated morals of most religions.
badattitude
04.29.2009
I agree. I’m trying to think of a short term solution to the problem of religion that is realistic. I think getting rid of religion would start civil war. And I don’t believe in genocide. Sterilizing people who believe in god and sending them to the fenced of center of Australia sounds bad.
Even if I can’t think of a short term solution, at least having an atheist/agnostic political power the size of our population would be a wonderful change in the world. The day that the atheists have some major amount of recognition could replace Easter. Paid day off for atheists and agnostics. Yes!
Lee
05.18.2009
I think an atheist international “holiday” would be interesting. Imagine a day when Atheist professionals stayed at home or congregated to listen to works of special scientific interest and current theories.
How would the world look if you took the atheists out? would society / economy notice any significant trends in abscences? of people OR discoveries. It would be an interesting phase space to encounter.
Alexandru
05.19.2009
Nothing to say , just testing , want to see what my posts and profile look like . I’ll see if I can delete it afterwards .
atypican
05.20.2009
What we need to do (especially since we identify as members of a church) is to stop spewing anti-religion rhetoric. I find it ironic that so many professed atheists seem unable to think of religion in anything but theistic terms.
There are teachings we consider important. Science gives us a method for testing and examining them, But how do we decide how to prioritize things most important over less important issues?
It is during the practice of religion that we determine not “how to study” (Which I think most of us agree on the scientific method) but what it is that we should study.
So I contend that science is not a replacement for religion. For example, consider the teaching that it is immoral to take delight in injuring others. How can we prove that using the scientific method?
Trying to prove it using the scientific method would itself be immoral.
Our morals and ethics come to us by the practice of religion.
Take my religious group for instance… Within our articles of faith is the profession that “argumentation and debate is to us a sacred rite.”
So here I am presenting my opinion which notwithstanding hermeneutic/semantic issues, is different than Mr. Mcmaster’s
Hoping to provoke debate
atypican
BTW how do we get listed as an atheist minister in New Mexico?
Adam
05.26.2009
Lee, i liked you idea about an athiest holiday. It might be nice to have a holiday.
Also, David Michael Janca, I do tend to agree with you on your first point. All too often Athiests get caught up in their own beliefs and get pulled into a cycle of rhetoric and dogma and impose said dogma on others freely and without restraint.
When it comes to your analigy, however, it seems somehow inadiquate. What is ‘moral’ is based on a society’s expectations of each indavidual. And so we already know that hurting someone is immoral because everyone, as a society, has decided it to be so.
Also, psychologists have used the scientific method for years to study why people do things and there are several theorys to this effect.
atypican
05.28.2009
The first point I made,(if I go by what you typed)you missed. I will try to be more succinct.
Theism is not a necessary component of religious belief.
All atheists reject theism, not all atheists are anti-religion. I would say especially those atheists who start a church should not be anti-religion. It to me is like saying: “People would be better off without belief systems” which I think is a silly proposition.
“we already know that hurting someone is immoral because everyone, as a society, has decided it to be so.”
I share Darwin’s view of morality in that morality is being capable of reflecting on past actions and their motives – of approving of some and disapproving of others.
If I were to go by the “societal approval” method you describe, and side with the largest, strongest group I perceive I could justify some pretty immoral (to me) actions as long as they were done in an effort to secure the highest possible financial gain while exposing my “economic security” to the lowest possible risk.
I will say again the scientific METHOD is about: How to study. The scientific method could be applied in immoral ways. Example: suppose it was theorized that by releasing deadly toxins into the environment we could strengthen our immune systems. Now I suspect that there is some truth to that theory, that doesn’t mean I think it would be moral to do it.
I hope you found that to be a respectful, thoughtful reply
atypican
atypican
05.28.2009
Also I don’t like the idea of atheist holy days. Only because I am at odds with the entire concept behind the word “holy”.
Andrew Henry
05.30.2009
Why does the Board Member state, “using proven Biblical principles in order to affect change in all other aspects of their life” if this is an atheist site/organization?
Henrietta Wilson
06.17.2009
Is it really necessary for anybody to put together an atheistic
‘dogma’?
Haven’t we have enough rules, regulations, limitations, etc. passed on down through all of those religions from the ancient days to the present?
Your right to swing your arm ends where my nose begins would be a good rule of thumb for everybody to observe. This includes the right to think and act for yourself without the interference of anyone who is not affected by your actions. In practical terms, whenever someone does interfere with another’s space there is likely to be a reaction from the one whose space was invaded. Some of those reactions can be very unpleasant therefore it is a good idea not to invade anybody’s space.
Full disclosure of all of the terms regarding any transaction between folks would be another good idea. If/when people treat each other honestly without holding back anything that will affect the transaction, then all parties are on equal footing. When consent is given upon the disclosure of all pertinent information, then misunderstandings are likely to be few and far between. The fewer misunderstandings, the better the chances of living in peace with each other….This is predicated on the basis of having a common language that all parties speak and understand fluently.
Discussions, interactions, etc. are going to be much more enjoyable is everyone involved treats all the others involved with respect.
The fact that these attributes are not found in organized religions are most directly responsible for the fact that I can not participate in any of those that I have investigated so far.
Kevin Michael Johnson
06.17.2009
You are missing the point, Henrietta. An organization is the best way for atheists to find each other, and build a network. This isn’t about imposing rules on Atheists. I haven’t encountered a rule for conducting a ministry on this site. This is about equal rights and freeing minds.
Aaron James Marko
06.20.2009
and don’t forget about the sweet, sweet tax breaks.
A humble rational person
07.19.2009
I am really happy to see that at least in other countries people are being proactive in promoting science over superstition. Unfortunately, not all people are so lucky. For example, in my country, having once suggested at work that I am an atheist, I got the following response: “I can’t even talk to you… Oh, God!”. Nothing more to say there. I just wanted to express my support and appreciation for your initiative and I hope that in time each one of us will be able to create a more rational world through our children, if we are not able to change this one.