It has millions of believers worldwide, 24 million in the U.S. alone. It made up 4% of the U.S. population in a 2000 poll and jumped to 8% in a 2006 poll, a growth rate any religion would be envious of. It's bigger in the U.S. than the Lutherns, Presbyterians, and the Mormans. It has evangelists in your schools and in your colleges and yet manages to use it's power to keep all other religions out. The majority of it's members are young, and it stands to reason that if all trends continue, it will one day be the largest religion in America. What is this all powerful, fast growing religion? Atheism.
I know what your all thinking, "Now hang on a damn minute H.C., Atheism is the complete opposite of religion. They don't have churches, they don't have a God, they don't have priests, ministers, or prophets how in the hell is it a religion?"
Well, as my mentor Bill Clinton used to say, "It depends on what your definition of "is" is." The Webster Collegiate dictionary offers this definition of a religion, "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith." Is there any doubt in anyone's mind that the Atheists of today are every bit as committed to their "faith" as any religious person you've ever met. Just try telling your college Anthropology prof. about Adam and Eve. For another definition, I went to the American Heritage Dictionary, they had this one to consider; "Any objection attended to or pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion". Again, try telling any committed Atheist that they're wrong about Evolution.
"They don't have a God." True, actually that's what makes them an Atheist. They deny the existence of God. But it's also true that a lot of the world's religions do not have a principle "God" or creator of the universe or mankind. Confuscianism, Buddhism, or Scientology are just a few examples of the world's religions that do not have a "God" as a creator of the universe or mankind.
"They don't have churches." Once again, it depends on your definition of "churches". Most every religion gives it's churches a name that is unique to it's religion, such as Synagogues, Mosques, or Temples, so I think it's fair to say "churches" are just a place where people of like faith meet in mass. By this definition, I can point out tons of websites such as Atheists.com, Atheists.org, or Blasphemychallenge.com where Atheists go to be "Baptised" into their faith by denouncing the Holy Spirit. The need of like minded people to congregate and share their views on their faith is not limited to Christians or Muslims, it is shared by Atheists as well. In fact, nearly all Universities have an Atheist student club.
"They don't have Prophets." I would argue that they have lots of them. Every Scientist that promotes their point of view is sited by them very much in the way all religions site their Prophets. I would argue further that Charles Darwin is their main Prophet as he is the father of their faith, that all things can be explained by Science, and God is just a myth designed to fill in the gaps of what we don't know yet.
"They don't have Priests or Ministers that propagate and promote their religion." While it is true that they don't go by a title, they do evangelize in your classrooms. They degrade and belittle people of religious belief in an attempt to quiet their point of view or dismiss it as myth or fantasy. While there have been studies that put the number of true Atheistic professors in our Universities as high as 40%, most of the studies show the number to be much lower. This comes from the fact that they tend to include Religious Colleges or Universities, and Colleges in general where the numbers are smaller for commited Atheists. I found one study done by Neil Gross, a Harvard Professor who after factoring in these other colleges and Universities still came up with 23.4% committed Atheists, nearly three times the general population average. Not suprisingly, most of these professors can be found in the more left-leaning fields of Sociology, Philosophy and Anthropology. Since "Separation of Church and State" is the mantra of the left, the religious point of view is not allowed while the Atheistic point of view is delivered by these Evangelists through Science. I'm not saying that they don't have a point in my eyes, just that they should be careful to not promote their "theories" as fact while refusing to even consider the religious point of view.
My main point here is that any set of beliefs adhered to by a large group of people and practiced by congregation, that evangalizes among the populace to promote it's views, should be considered a religion. As most of you know by now, I'm a huge advocate of both sides getting their say in any debate as long as their not calling for direct violence against a group. The worst thing that can happen to America in my eyes, is that one side, whether right or left, liberal, conservative, or anything inbetween should be allowed to dominate a discussion by blocking in any way the other sides views. By exempting themselves from being called a religion, Atheists have done what the Catholics or the Protestants could not do. Make their belief system the only one taught in our schools. Science is one thing, and religion another and the two should be separate. But the use of Science by our schools to directly attack religion and then denying them the chance to debate is simply indoctrining a point of view. Atheism IS a religion, and if we are not going to allow other religions to express their theology then our professors should be held to a very high standard of not promoting Atheism also. Atheism is viewed by the far left in this country as a vehicle to promote their agenda of Liberalizing this country. I'm not afraid of debate for or against any of their agenda, but they are using Atheism as a means to attack religion and it's morality and to promote their own. The proof is in the numbers. H.C.
I know what your all thinking, "Now hang on a damn minute H.C., Atheism is the complete opposite of religion. They don't have churches, they don't have a God, they don't have priests, ministers, or prophets how in the hell is it a religion?"
Well, as my mentor Bill Clinton used to say, "It depends on what your definition of "is" is." The Webster Collegiate dictionary offers this definition of a religion, "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith." Is there any doubt in anyone's mind that the Atheists of today are every bit as committed to their "faith" as any religious person you've ever met. Just try telling your college Anthropology prof. about Adam and Eve. For another definition, I went to the American Heritage Dictionary, they had this one to consider; "Any objection attended to or pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion". Again, try telling any committed Atheist that they're wrong about Evolution.
"They don't have a God." True, actually that's what makes them an Atheist. They deny the existence of God. But it's also true that a lot of the world's religions do not have a principle "God" or creator of the universe or mankind. Confuscianism, Buddhism, or Scientology are just a few examples of the world's religions that do not have a "God" as a creator of the universe or mankind.
"They don't have churches." Once again, it depends on your definition of "churches". Most every religion gives it's churches a name that is unique to it's religion, such as Synagogues, Mosques, or Temples, so I think it's fair to say "churches" are just a place where people of like faith meet in mass. By this definition, I can point out tons of websites such as Atheists.com, Atheists.org, or Blasphemychallenge.com where Atheists go to be "Baptised" into their faith by denouncing the Holy Spirit. The need of like minded people to congregate and share their views on their faith is not limited to Christians or Muslims, it is shared by Atheists as well. In fact, nearly all Universities have an Atheist student club.
"They don't have Prophets." I would argue that they have lots of them. Every Scientist that promotes their point of view is sited by them very much in the way all religions site their Prophets. I would argue further that Charles Darwin is their main Prophet as he is the father of their faith, that all things can be explained by Science, and God is just a myth designed to fill in the gaps of what we don't know yet.
"They don't have Priests or Ministers that propagate and promote their religion." While it is true that they don't go by a title, they do evangelize in your classrooms. They degrade and belittle people of religious belief in an attempt to quiet their point of view or dismiss it as myth or fantasy. While there have been studies that put the number of true Atheistic professors in our Universities as high as 40%, most of the studies show the number to be much lower. This comes from the fact that they tend to include Religious Colleges or Universities, and Colleges in general where the numbers are smaller for commited Atheists. I found one study done by Neil Gross, a Harvard Professor who after factoring in these other colleges and Universities still came up with 23.4% committed Atheists, nearly three times the general population average. Not suprisingly, most of these professors can be found in the more left-leaning fields of Sociology, Philosophy and Anthropology. Since "Separation of Church and State" is the mantra of the left, the religious point of view is not allowed while the Atheistic point of view is delivered by these Evangelists through Science. I'm not saying that they don't have a point in my eyes, just that they should be careful to not promote their "theories" as fact while refusing to even consider the religious point of view.
My main point here is that any set of beliefs adhered to by a large group of people and practiced by congregation, that evangalizes among the populace to promote it's views, should be considered a religion. As most of you know by now, I'm a huge advocate of both sides getting their say in any debate as long as their not calling for direct violence against a group. The worst thing that can happen to America in my eyes, is that one side, whether right or left, liberal, conservative, or anything inbetween should be allowed to dominate a discussion by blocking in any way the other sides views. By exempting themselves from being called a religion, Atheists have done what the Catholics or the Protestants could not do. Make their belief system the only one taught in our schools. Science is one thing, and religion another and the two should be separate. But the use of Science by our schools to directly attack religion and then denying them the chance to debate is simply indoctrining a point of view. Atheism IS a religion, and if we are not going to allow other religions to express their theology then our professors should be held to a very high standard of not promoting Atheism also. Atheism is viewed by the far left in this country as a vehicle to promote their agenda of Liberalizing this country. I'm not afraid of debate for or against any of their agenda, but they are using Atheism as a means to attack religion and it's morality and to promote their own. The proof is in the numbers. H.C.
7 comments:
My largest complaint with schools teaching religion is that in most cases (this is just my opinion based on experience)the instructor does not teach from a objective angle. They preach to the students as if their lesson was factual. I believe a professor who teaches evolution, has spent a great deal of time on his own collage education , and no doubt had simular beliefs prior to that education. Devout christans don't get a degree and move on to teach evolution and visa versa. My point is... its bias. I would not object to any religious subject, including darwinism, being taught in schools to my children so long as the idea's and concepts are presented in an objective manor. For Example: "some people BELIEVE that god created the universe, here is the current evidence to support this THEORY." or "Some people BELIEVE in the big bang, here is the current evidence to support this THEORY" Great topic H.C. and i agree with you totally, and may i add this: To say that you KNOW for a fact that there is not a God, is just as arrogant as someone claiming to KNOW that God exist.
"Believing and knowing are two different things" -Travis meeks
1) This nearly reads as if you're fishing for a religous debate. Hmmm...
2) I've never quite gotten why it is that some Atheists deem it necessary to unite & fight for...what? I understand fighting for your right to believe in something, but to fight to...not believe?
3) I think you vastly overexaggerate the Atheist 'movement'. Maybe things are very different on your campus, but having lived on the campuses of multiple Colleges and Universities, I can state w/ a high degree of certainty that of all the 100s of different groups, causes, action committees, NGOs, etc., this so-called Atheist movement ranks very low on the scale of popularity, activity, & power.
4) Yes, Atheism appears to be on the rise but while many people identify w/ Atheism I'd be willing to gamble that @ least 95% of those are not active in any sort of Atheist agenda.
5) A disproportonal number of College Professors are Atheists? And...? I am now convinced that all this BS I've heard all my life about College Professors being Liberal-preaching (and now Atheism-preaching) scum is a nothing but a blatent lie. Once, in the entirity of my educational career have I had a professor spout his political views to the class (Philosophy, so somewhat justified, but still borderline), and absolutely nil have talked about their religion, or lack thereof.
6) As far as Atheism being an actual religion goes, I do see your point. But it also seems that you're misconstruing definitions in an effort to portray something not as it is, but as you see it. To me, religion has to deal w/ worship, or @ least some sort of God/Holy something-or-other(s)(Atheists, or myself @ the very least, don't see science as being a God. Science is merely being used, much like a tool, to attempt to prove a theory. Do Christians not use science, such as the scientifically proven existence of long ruined cities, or long-dead persons to achieve the same result?)
7) In response to "..then our professors should be held to a very high standard of not promoting Atheism also.": Educators aren't preaching Atheism. Educators aren't preaching religious beliefs either. This is possible. Yes, scientific fact is mentioned, or even what is almost-but-not-quite-proven science (black holes, dark matter, & other things I don't quite understand), but there is an inherent difference between Science (what is proven, or commonly accepted to be fact) & faith. Faith, to me, is something that is real because you believe it to be (& it very well may be, even scientifically speaking, now or in the future). As a student, I want to be taught facts. I want to be taught theories as well, but if they're taught to me then I request that they're presented as such.
8) I apologize for yet another lengthy comment. It's also a bit scattered, & I'm sure I'm neglecting to address a thing or two but I'm sure your post will undoubtedly stir up some sort of good discussion.
9) I couldn't agree w/ the comment by "Anonymous" more. Very well said.
-n
Hey Anonymous,
Excellent points all around. That's exactly the thought process I was going for. After being so badly misunderstood in my "Why I Can't Support Gay Marriage" It's nice to see someone got one of my posts. Thanks for commenting!
Hey Nic,
You are of course, right, I am only promoting a debate, although I wouldn't say that I don't believe what I'm stating. I look for ways to get people to think about things differently. In a way they may not have thought about. As far as it not being as bad as I'm stating in our Colleges and Universities. I guess it's how you look at it. I found the Harvard study that I sited as being pretty good proof that they are at least in a position to promote, even if not all of them are promoting. I guess I see it as "passive promotion" in that they are passionate about keeping God out of their classroom but are not passionate about keeping Atheism out. Thanks for your comments, they're very well thought out, and that's what we're looking for.
Hey H.C, that was me that posted anonymous, but i have an account here now. I was inspired to start up my own blog with a spin-off on this topic. Once again great writing you've got here, it really got the ol' brain gears grindin'....
H.C
I'm going to weigh in on this subject.I would like to ask Athiests a few things but I will narrow it down to a a couple questions:
1.) Why ,if you don't beleive there is a Superior Being,Creator or Diety,do you feel the need to waste your time trying to force your views?
If you truly beleive people who beleive in the above are lunatics or stupid why waste your limited time?
2.) Ok,so if you can convince the masses (no pun intended) that there is no God,what then?
What sort of belief system are you going to adovocate? Your version of a utopia would not take root easily. What sort of ethics would you advocate? What kind of morality would result ? Who or what would replace the void that belief in a transcedent morality already fills?
I make no claims of being ALL KNOWING,I make no claims that I can prove that a God exists. I just cringe at anyone I have personally known who were Athiests to be placed in the role as some new grand architect of a NEW WAY for anyone to follow. And before you Athiests jump in an attempt to tell me that religion has been the cause of all sort of deaths and horrbile things ,let me say,I KNOW. I can also quickly point to the system of governments under Communists (typically very pronounced in their espousing of athiesm) have been much more efficent in murdering than two thousand Spanish Inqusitions.
So to the Athiests I say this;don't worry about me. If I am living uder a terrible delusion in your eyes then it is my life.I won't try to convert you to my delusions. All I ask of you is don't force yours upon me either.
Hi,
I stumbled across your blog the other day, and I found this entry from I guess a year ago. I was amazed at how misconceived a couple of your imaginings are. Guessing that this could be indicative of some confusion in a large sector of the population, I thought to try to disabuse you of your error. This is an intellectual favor, not an attack.
The problem is, that you are criticizing something that you, or people who share some of your beliefs and values, have created in your own heads. What gives this away is the following quote:
I would argue further that Charles Darwin is their main Prophet as he is the father of their faith, that all things can be explained by Science, and God is just a myth designed to fill in the gaps of what we don't know yet.
But Darwin didn’t invent atheism, or the scientific method, or even the idea of biological eveolution. Darwin described a theory of evolution, and he contributed to the science of biology. Atheism is the non-belief in a cetain entity or principle. Anyone who disbelieves in that entity is an atheist. That disbelief could be important to the person, or it could be unimportant. I don’t believe in Krishna. But that non-belief is not important to me, I don’t really care one way or the other and I don’t think about it very often. I don’t belong to a religion called “Akrishnianity” and neither do you.
Darwin made discoveries about biology that have been accepted by the world of science. They don’t fit with some kinds of strict Scriptural Christianity, but that’s not why he did it. The space program doesn’t fit in with the versions of Islam that expect to find seven layers of heaven above us, but we don’t send space sattelites to space because we hate Allah. Some people who accept the theory of evolution believe in God in various ways, some don’t, these are two different things.
The vehemence of the defence against “Creationist Science” or whatever isn’t out of a hatred for God or Christians, it is out of defence of science education against irrelevant tampering with the education system. It’s the same reaction you would get if the Flat Earth Society tried to demand equal time for Flat Earth Science in Astronomy classes—and was widely supported.
It is “Creationist” Biblical Fundamentalists who conflated them. “Darwinism” is taken as the most direct attack on their religion, so they decide that people attacking their religion must be followers of Darwin. Thus your odd paragraph. But this conflation is based on their own cognitive schemes. The flare-up is a defence of Science from totally misleading (in terms of science) considerations. The fact that it is taken as an attack on Christianity or a fanatic defence of Atheism is based on an association created by them, not by anything major outside.
Logically, (NOT MORALLY) it is like those Muslims who say that the purpose of Democracy is to destroy Islam—and look how vehemently they defend their religion of Democracy—they must really hate God. Or like Communists who said that the purpose of Bourgeois Democracy is to enslave the Proletariat. Why? Because Democracy means Capitalism, and Capitalism means Class Oppression.
It’s your trip, it’s in your head. It’s throwing stones at the Mina. That only adds to the appearance of ignorance that the Creationists have managed to draw upon themselves in the eyes of many many educated people.
ascolmes@gmail.com
Post a Comment