Ever engaged in debate with a Christian and got the trite “I’ll pray for you“?
Probably not exactly their motivation when they say “I’ll pray for you,” but I’m sure they know how condescending and annoying that is to an atheist. It is the ultimate conversation stopper. I think they use it to conceal their real thoughts, which I suppose would go along the lines: you’re threatening me with reason, and I need a way out; or, screw you I’m right you’re wrong, but I have nothing worthwhile to counter-argue your reasons so I’ll say some religious crap self-righteous cop-out phrase to get you off my back.
It pisses me off.
It annoys me more than all the other meaningless phrases they have at hand when confronted with reason: “Jesus loves you,” “Hope you enjoy your special place in Hell,” and my all-time favorite “what happened to you to make you hate god so much?”, which is the funniest, since they fail to understand we can’t hate a figment of someone else’s imagination. Du’h.
I think he picture totally captures the sentiment, and it’s funny enough to give it a little space here. Hope you get some kicks out of it.
There is this new tendency to label outspoken atheists as “Militant Atheists.” Here’s why I think it’s wrong.
I wish I could renounce the label Atheist, to begin with. In case you didn’t know, “atheist” is a label given to us by believers. It used to be a derogatory label, a Christian slur against us coined used in France in the 16th century as a reaction to growing free thought, skeptical inquiry, and intellectual criticism of religion. When someone called you an atheist it was not a good thing. “Atheist” was used exclusively as an insult. Nobody in their right mind would have called themselves an atheist back then, if you were an atheist, you were an outcast.
No one ever needs to identify himself as a “non-astrologer” or a “non-alchemist.” We do not have words for people who doubt that Elvis is still alive or that aliens have traversed the galaxy only to molest ranchers and their cattle. Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs.
— Sam Harris, The End of Faith
I concur.
I can’t singlehandedly ditch the label entirely, as it is a way to identify our lack of belief in deities. Until we unbelievers get to a consensus on what would be the best term to describe ourselves, I am in some way forced to keep it, sadly.
But on top of that, now I am labeled “militant.” This is totally inaccurate, and I – and hopefully you – won’t take it silently.
Let’s look it up. According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary.
Militant:
1. engaged in warfare or combat
2. aggressively active
We might be loud, we might be strident, we might be angry, but we are not militant. Advocacy, rational inquiry, is not militancy. We are not aggressive, we are not violent, we are not at war, we are not fighting, we are not blowing ourselves and our detractors up to make a point, we don’t fly plains into buildings. Heck! we don’t even knock on anyone’s door to dis-indoctrinate them. Our only weapon is our rationality. We have rational discussions, we challenge irrational beliefs. That is what we do.
We have to speak up — we need to! It is the only way to normalize a concept that has been considered taboo for ages; that’s how we de-demonize a label. Furthermore, it’s been scientifically proven that the more we force people to think about their beliefs, the more we force them to justify their ideas, the more cognitive dissonance we generate, more and more people will break free from their dogmas. Once they abandon one dogma, there goes the rest of their belief system, and they start walking their path toward rationality.
That feeling of discomfort when an atheist points out facts and evidence that obviously contradict your strongly held beliefs, is not us hurting you, it’s your cognitive dissonance at work.
But there is more to it, it has an ulterior motive. It’s the fallacy of disambiguation, or poisoning the well: a technique that by disparaging the source deems all that comes from it worthless and unreliable.
There isn’t any inherent dogma in atheism that advocates any violence in the defense of non-belief; so, no, I won’t take it. I am not militant. I am not violent.
Next time you want to come up with yet another derogatory term to label us unbelievers, check your facts before applying your unsolicited labels wrongly.
Before you get all critical on me, the only reason why I am refuting a point with bible verses, is because the bible is the source, and justification for the bigotry I am trying to destroy. Women deserve the right to do as they please with their bodies, according to their marital, financial, housing status, and all those very important considerations.
Furthermore, my purpose is strictly to point out to those who believe the bible is literal, that the bible refutes itself, and in doing so, nullifies its validity.
With that having been said, I’d also like to mention that I wouldn’t like to be in this situation; or, if I had a daughter, I wouldn’t want her to find herself in the situation to have to consider an abortion, but I certainly would want her to have the right to choose. I also don’t want to be labeled Pro-Choice. Have you ever seen those MRI exams? Speak with your kids about contraception. Pronto!
Six weeks old human fetus
According to the bible, god has assessed the right value to all unborn babies, even if you are a Christian, you probably didn’t know the following:
In Exodus 21:22-23 it’s stipulated that if an attack on a woman leads to a miscarriage the attacker must pay a fine. If he causes serious damage to the mother “you have to take life for life”. This implies that a fetus is not as valuable as a woman before the eyes of god.
In Leviticus 27:6 a price, yes, monetary value is assigned to a baby’s life, according to its age and gender. Babies under one month old are worthless.
In Numbers 5:21-22, 27-28 some magical potion given to the Israelites by god is used to determine paternity. If the father is not the husband, “her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry, and she will become a curse.” A fetus that is not the result of union between husband and wife, is sentenced to die. See, a bastard fetus is clearly of no value to god.
Did no one else think of Jesus’ fate, had Joseph taken this super scientific paternity test?
In Genesis 38:24 god’s law states that if a woman is to be executed, and she happens to be pregnant, there is no need to wait for her baby to be born. The fetus is counted as part of the mother, and so its fate is to be burned to death in its mother’s womb.
It is irrational to let an ancient book rule our lives. This is the morality of a civilization who lived two thousand years ago. These are the people who thought The Earth was flat. We live in a privileged time, with so many scientific discoveries, and the technology that has allowed us to see beyond what we ever imagined, and thanks to these, we now understand the Universe and how it works — things that not too long ago were thought impossible.
Humanity hasn’t come this far to let the ignorance from two thousand years ago be the guide by which we make our laws. Would you consider these biblical laws as acceptable punishment in the modern world? If your answer to that question is “yes,” then, would it be okay if I suggest you step away from this computer, stay away from my laws, and and go live with The Amish*?
