Bidding Holy Days Good-Riddance

I do not celebrate any religious holidays.

I am a "from the cradle" atheist. Don't think my parents particularly enlightened though. It was just neglect, masquerading as "allowing choice."

I am from about 2 generations ago, and when I realized (in isolation - no internet at the time) the malicious and dehumanizing nature of religious dogma (and indeed all dogma), I began to see religious holidays as anti-human events intended to promote an anti-human agenda. I gave up celebrating them for that reason - they are anti-human symbols of anti-human mentalities.

Since that time, not celebrating hatred of humanity has become pretty much a defining part of who I am. It is unthinkable at this point that I should return to it. Unfortunately for me, I suppose, the next generation's crop of budding atheists came in the form of almost deprogrammed religious people, who still bore fond memories of religious holidays - and a prime topic became whether people should or should not celebrate. Some of the deep programming, it seems, remains.

I rarely speak in terms of "shoulds," so I was at a disadvantage against a huge number of atheists leaving their religions, and wanting to keep the old, good times alive, despite what they were symbols for. They moved into redefining holidays in their own terms or reclaiming them from religion B back for a better/nicer/kinder religion A or some other such rationalization. I always saw the proper approach as creating new celebrations based on humans rather than dogma.

Hell, even our "atheist" groups are mostly led by people who have only recently lost their faiths, so now we see most atheists carrying baggage from their earlier lives, which they try to inject into atheism. They suffer a cognitive dissonance about celebrating holidays that I do not. Of course this is sort of understandable, since religions routinely seek to assimilate any celebration into their dogmatic terms.

The latest "millennials" generation is even worse, having re-embraced extreme dogmatism in the form of social engineering. Because, you know, they have it all 100% right *this time.*

That I see it this way does not add to my popularity, even among atheists, and when I describe an atheist or humanist accepting a xmas present as being like a jew accepting a present wrapped in swastikas, that doesn't sit well with some. Most are still unsure whether religion is humane or not whereas I recognize religious charity as a mere PR campaign. It isn't charity at all and it isn't about humans at all - it's an indoctrination technique.

However, that said, that is how I see it, and I make no demands or claims on anyone else. Celebrate what you choose to. I never really had a family, so familial reasons do not apply to me, as they might to others.

I shall continue to raise a toast on Darwin Day or on Carl Sagan's birthday and hibernate during religious celebrations. That is my way, and it helps to maintain the integrity of who I am.

Reclaim Our Humanity

The very first thing we must do in terms of human values is to reclaim our qualities from the wretched dogma of the religious. For too long we have let them hijack and redefine (to suit their purposes) our finest qualities.

Are you in "love?" Not unless it's "through God" say christians. "Peace" is achieved only after islamic conquest of everything everywhere.

Our dedications to each other are enshrouded in religious trappings - so much so, the celebrations aren't even about we humans at all anymore. This shit needs to stop. It is one of the many ways religion is harmful, and why I am an anti-theist. I see the harm.

We need to reclaim our humanity.

Does anyone have a favourite human quality that religion has hijacked and redefined? My favourite is morality. They took what should be an opportunity to continuously elevate people to a higher standard and reduced it to a retributivistic punish - Punish - PUNISH!

Steps to Becoming Anti-Dogma

Now, please understand that these are not commands. I am not trying to proselytize here. It's is merely one route upon many possible ones, and my steps reflect , in part, my journey through philosophy as well as as a skeptic.

Step#1:
Move away from your religion. See the bullshit for what it is - become, through one or more phases, an atheist. It's OK to use a different word for it. Don't let anyone define you for you.

Step#2:
Recognize the harm of your religion. Be careful, this part is fraught with possible error. There will be a real temptation to entertain the notion that minorities can do no wrong, and so support other, minority, religions regardless of that religion's content. Millennials get caught on this one all the time, it seems. Of course the newer not-necessarily religious ideologies are pushing this craziness.

Step#3:
Recognize the harm common to all religions (become an anti-theist). Yes, this is the definition of an anti-theist. It's not about being anti theists, despite the wails of the people who oppose you. Instead, understand that they are victims of indoctrination and/or brainwashing.

Step#4:
Start digging deeper (intense skeptical inquiry), until you hit the prime content of any religion, which is to subjugate humans beneath dogma, beneath a narrative. The primary weapon for this is prescriptive normative "morality," which has no basis.

Step#5:
Proceed through the nihilist phase until you realize that you are still defining things as the religious want you to. Leave the religious definitions in the dust. Start learning and developing more human centered definitions, and leave nihilism in the dust of learned, necessary transitions, and overcome experiences.

Step#6:
Start exploring all the new potentials and possibilities of life post-dogma.

An Interview with Yours Truly

A friend from across the globe has elected to do some interviews with atheists for his blog and decided to include yours truly. As an exercise in self-indulgence (and because I state things reasonably clearly here), here is the interview (warts and all) in its entirety as he presents it on his blog:
Cosmic Stories

OK. I did add some paragraph breaks. ;)

Without Further Ado...

Q: What is your name?

Dglas: Gregory Douglas Teed. Hence the name I use online, “Dglas.”

Q: So, you are a philosopher and an atheist? Why don’t you believe in God?

Dglas: I don’t have any reason to believe in God. There is no evidence for such an entity. Indeed it is specifically defined such that evidence simply does not apply. Recognizing the nature of that definition makes one realize that we can define any host of things that way. If we believed things based on such definitions, there’d be a whole lot of things we’d be believing – like that malicious gremlins (who can only be appeased by sacrificing bowlfuls of Lucky Charms) cause car engine knocks. For me to believe something, there has to be a reason to believe it.

And then, my “belief” is contingent and subject to change if the evidence warrants a change. My beliefs do not exist outside of reality. My beliefs are about reality and are thus governed by reality.

Q. Some people would say that you don’t want to see the evidence of God.

Dglas: Yes, some do say that.

What I do or do not want is irrelevant. More importantly, however, is that I am no sole arbiter of what is or is not the case. I have bad eyesight, but I do not imagine that looking over the rims of my glasses actually changes reality just because it looks different to me. My perceptions are flawed, just like anyone else’s. We need a better standard of evaluation that just “seeing the signs.” We need something that tempers human fallibility, including my own – or that at least tries. Mere confirmation bias is not a good basis for understanding reality.

Q. I have heard to William Craig, the famous christian preacher. Why is there anything instead of nothing?

Dglas: Many questions expect certain kinds of answers – they are leading questions. “Why are we here?” often expects a certain kind of answer – usually a purpose-oriented one. If you can accept an evolutionary explanation for why we are here, then that answer will be satisfactory. If not, then that answer will not seem satisfactory. Craig’s question is such a leading question, although it requires much more work than our scope here permits. Why would anyone ever assume that there can be nothing to contrast with something?

Q. You don’t believe that there is any evidence of God. But God has always been associated with ethics and morality. Where do the Atheists get their morality from?

Dglas: Unicorns have always been associated with virginity and purity too.

Technically atheism is only about the existence or non-existence of god(s). Questions of ethics are separate and apart from that, but at least atheism opens the door for a model of ethics that isn’t just a tyrant holding us down. To answer the question though, most atheists I have encountered get their morality from their society and the people around them. Many understand morality to be a negotiated social construct rather than a top-down assignment of forbiddings. Personally, I think this is a better model for morality than what gods offer us, since it involves some negotiation and agreement. I think that one important thing to realize about the state of modern atheism right now is that it is in transition, developing it’s own path.

Q. But, weren’t Hitler and Stalin atheists?

Dglas: Hitler professed to be a Christian, and often used appeals to Christianity to push his totalitairianism. Personally, I find the “What was Hitler?” disputes (I won’t even dignify them by calling them debates) childish. In my view he was a ruthless opportunist using anything he could get his paws on to promote his own personal power. The masses could be swayed with Christian noises, so he made Christian noises. As for Stalin, the matter is more complicated, by very similar. Stalin sought to replace Christianity with a state loyalty – effectively another religion. What his motives are are a matter of opinion, but I would say this: atheism itself is less than accommodating of religions – including state-based religions. Again, of course, questions of existence of god(s) and questions of ethics are separate subject matters.

What is more interesting is how these noises could be used to sway the masses. Being a believer seems to make one susceptible to suggestion…

Q. You are a philosopher. How does it helps you to resolve the everyday problems of life?

Dglas: Technically, I am not a philosopher. I am philosophically-minded. However, that said, philosophy, as inquiry, allows one a broader perspective that allows for more possibilities in one’s thinking. I suspect I adapt to new information better than your average believer, because I’m not busy seeking to deny new information on the basis of this or that unsubstantiated faith. Faith does not interfere with my acuity or ability to learn. I can approach problems from a wide variety of different angles, rather than just trying to brute-force my way with the established doctrines.

Q. So, Greg, are you married?

Dglas: No.

Q. I have heard that many atheists do not believe in marriage. Are you one of them?

Dglas: Here’s my take. Marriage is merely a symbolic ritual. What matters is the relationship between the people involved. If that’s not enough to sustain you, then you are living a lie. Unfortunately, the symbolic rituals usually involve introducing doctrinal nonsense into the relationship – poisoning the relationship. My story of becoming an anti-theist has to do with just such a poisoning. The religious may not claim my personal life – it is not theirs for the redefining into their hobbled little framework. That said, I really have no issue whatsoever with marriage. My reasons for not getting married are really my own and involve a lot of factors that others may not be familiar with.

I cannot speak for others on this.

Q. So you believe in only those thinsg that can be proved. What about Love?

Dglas: I am not entirely convinced love is anything but a homeostatic imbalance.

More seriously, love seems to be a social construct as well, subject to negotiated public and private understandings. There are physiological and bio-chemical underpinnings to love, it seems, but the general understanding of these seems subject to interpretation.

Q. Many people think that atheists are cold and distant, that they do not understand things like poetry and beatuty. What is your take on that?
Dglas: I think that’s nonsense. Why has understanding of art been associated with supernatural conceptions. I am a fan of music, despite that the dance of notes can be depicted mathematically. I think this misconception has to do with the idea that without mystery there is no wonder, but in my experience, and seemingly the experience of many atheists, wonder is a vital part of our existence. Our most popular speakers, past and present, like Dr. Sagan for example, speak of the joy of exploration, discovery, and inquiry. For my own part I am proud of humanity when it pushes the boundaries of our knowledge and understanding. Every new discovery, every new advancement exhilarates me. There is a reason why we are typically systematic in our understandings – it helps us grow. Of course, many atheists are also humanists, which is not exactly a cold and analytical perspective. One of my reasons for being an anti-theist is that “I prefer Hobbits happy and free, to Hobbits in chains.” For many of us, it seems, the future is a wonderland of possibilities, open and limitless. Compared to that, the “end of times” visions of the religious seem desperately poor in their poverty.

Q. If there is no god then who created the universe?

Dglas: What makes you think there is a someone who created the universe? For that matter what makes you think the universe ever did not exist, much less was “created?” That is a leading question that expects a certain kind of answer and I think I covered that already.  One does not answer leading questions. One points at their leading nature and laughs at them for trying to control the discourse.

Q. Still there are billions of religious people in the world. Do you take these people as partners or enemies in your endeavor to make a greater change in the world.

Dglas: We are all engaged in a grand enterprise, a planet-wide negotiation of who and what we are and of who and what we might be. We need variety of perspective in order to have a wide diversity of ideas and material to work with. Some, I think, approach the negotiating table dishonestly with no interest in compromise or possibilities. I do not see the people as “enemies.” I see dogma as an affliction that hobbles could-be allies in that grand exploration. I see orthodoxy requirements as a means of halting discussion, of silencing critical inquiry, of limiting possibilities. I see them as potential allies who could be friends if only they didn’t have this intellectual/emotional disease, this dogma, telling them to hate me and to hate humanity. Dogma, including religious dogma, is antithetical to change. It is a cage of the mind. Our understandings of self are a negotiated social construct as well. I add my voice to the negotiation advocating that we be more than just a caged animal.

Q. Thank you Greg for your support and honest answers. I wish you luck in your life.

Dglas: Thank you. I hope I have been helpful in some way.

Fluffistry Unchallenged

So, I say in my introduction blurb, "I am a skeptic, a real one - both scientific and philosophical with unlimited scope of inquiry." What does that mean? Let's start with the not quite hidden evil twin of agnostic atheism:

The Evil Twin

Nowadays, and I push for this as well, atheists are in the process of defining themselves. The rising star is atheism as a "lack of belief" rather than a "belief in lack." This avoids certain epistemological issues and heals the rift between agnosticism and atheism. Oh, buy, does that ever piss the theists off. They no longer get to control the discourse. I often sense their panic setting in. Thta said...

It is possible for someone to be a dogmatic atheist - not relying on skeptical reasoning for their belief and/or claiming that their atheism is a knowledge claim. At that point skeptical doubt is not being universally or rigorously applied.

Beware the new age definition of skepticism. That definition limits the scope of inquiry and decimates the primary function of skepticism - protection from dogma.

Scientific "Skepticism"

Modern "scientific skepticism" defines things entirely in terms of empirical evidence (this admittedly aligns itself with science), effectively claiming that non-empirical matters are beyond the scope of skeptical inquiry. Hence a whole non-empirical realm of "woo" is deemed off-limits to skeptical inquiry. This is the underlying effect of NOMA (Non-Overlapping Magisteria). Thus you see skeptical organizations attacking "woo" that has empirical references, but holding "woo" without empirical reference immune to skeptical inquiry. This, of course, is loved by the apologists and accommodationists who wish to selectively decide what does and what does not get called into question. The primary example of course, is that the greatest, most dangerous and pervasive "woo" of them all is left unchallenged by scientific skepticism - God. And that, ultimately, is why the Pope has never received a Pigasus.

So, how did we get to this miserable state. Well, this may come as a shock to some, but religion was not always tempered by considerations like reason and honesty. Basically think of religion as being temporarily papertrained. Stop watching it, and will start pissing all over everything again (current American/Canadian politics display this only too vividly). In order for a fledgling movement to avoid getting squished like a bug under religion's heel, certain compromises were made. NOMA was developed and made part of the agenda. Now, "skeptical" organizations are effectively under the heel of apologists and accommodationists. The justification now is theists "being welcome," but whatever the justification, the result is the same - a hobbled scope of skeptical inquiry.

The JREF's Shame

That is one of the reasons I have such a profound disrespect for the JREF. The last MDC (Million Dollar Challenge) I saw was an hour or more long live videofeed of Jeff Wagg's crotch as some poor, deluded backwater woman tried to prove she could make him urinate with the power of her brain. I kid you not. Meanwhile, God remains unchallenged and the Pope still does not have a Pigasus.

The other reason has to do with free and open inquiry, but that's a story for another time.

Worse, with the new age definition of skepticism, ideologies are also outside the scope of "skeptical" inquiry. Hence we get people like Shermer and Watson seeking to annex skepticism as a niche market for their personal ideologies and demagoguery (and sometimes mere cliquish popularity contests). Ideologies are non-empirical, as are values. Hence we see Shermer's clam that "pure skepticism" is sterile and unproductive. This is, of course, utter nonsense - we can work from posited starting points just as easily as we can from dogmatically believed ones. Uncertainty does not necessarily equate to indecision or helplessness.

Shunning Your Allies in Favour of Your Enemies

What this hobbled definition really amounts to is a disdaining of anyone who has the temerity to think in any but empirical terms. Which is all well and good, until again, you encounter an ideology, or a claim that is presented in such a fashion that it does not admit of empirical verification/refutation (such as God). Whether ideologies are empirical or not, they do have real influence and real empirical effects. I hold that we cannot afford to leave the other magisteria unchallenged, to the dogmatic nutjobs.

And that is when you need pure or philosophical skepticism, because it also provides a defence against these "other magisteria" claims. That "other magisteria" is within the scope of philosophical inquiry.

The purpose of skepticism is not (merely) to indicate when a claim is false, but to indicate when a claim is not necessarily true. If we limit the scope of doubt to a very specific realm, then skepticism loses its ability to provide us with a doubt methodology for non-empirical matters (more properly said, we ignore that tool) - to provide us with a defense against mystical/metaphysical/non-empirical fluffistry. The ideologues and dogmatists are left a whole realm where they are left unchallenged. And, you see, this is where I, as a philosophical skeptic, differ from the mere scientific skeptics. I recognize no artificial limits on the scope of skeptical inquiry. I can meet the dogmatists, the mystics, the ideologues, and the demagogues on their own turf and soundly thrash them there, rather than just pretending they can be ignored - because they can't. They have influence, like it of not, and I think the evidence bears that out.

So, I am a scientific skeptic, but I am also a philosophical skeptic, with an unlimited scope of skeptical inquiry. The apologists and accommodationist influences who seek to hobble and contain inquiry within their very specific parameters can go to hell, straight to hell, do not pass go, do not collect $200.

Dishonest Skepticism

Fortunately, many people extend their skepticism beyond the scope of scientific skepticism and that stopped Shermer in his tracks not that long ago (and has also resulted in a strong correlation between skeptics and atheists) when he tried to equate skepticism with his radical political and economic ideology (libertarianism), Whether it will be enough to halt Watson before she turns the whole enterprise into a polarized shouting match and skepticism is lost in the demagoguery is an open question. Getting polarized is easy - remaining unpolarized, not so much.

Unfortunately, many people extend their skepticism selectively so that their private gris-gris remains "beyond the scope." The principle of eschewing certainty gets shuffled off to a limited scope, defined, in part, by individual whim (which really equates to intuitionism). And that is the purpose behind Shermer's definition of skepticism. Hence we get silly claims like "no one can be skeptical of everything." Of course anyone can. Doubt is not denial. All it requires is the recognition of the possibility of error regardless of the subject matter, the eschewing of certainty with respect to all subject matters, including one's own cherished beliefs and preferences. I, for example, am a humanist by choice, but I do claim that humanism is The Truth!(TM).

Skepticism can be harsh, it'll tell you things you don't really want to hear, but it is absolutely loyal and will never tell you lies.

No True Skeptical Scotsman

Now, the intelligent design (cdesignproponentist) people tried to redefine science such that faith-based evidence was considered scientific. Most people with any grasp of science will realize that this utterly subverts science as a methodology of error-correction based on empirical evidence. After all, if adopted, the ID mentality will now base error-correction on the whims of faith. In this way intelligent design completely decimates the primary function of scientific inquiry.

So it is with artificially limited scope and skepticism. Skepticism is, first and foremost, a protection/defence against dogmatically held ideas - any ideas - including non-empirical ones. When we say that a subject mater is "beyond the scope" of skeptical inquiry, we are rendering ourselves defenseless against that other magisteria. Thus utterly decimates the primary function of skepticism.

This is what I mean when I say I am a true skeptic. It's not a fallacy; it's a recognition that skepticism has a function. Scientific skepticism is all well and good within its sphere, but the moment it tries to limit all skeptical critique to within that sphere (as Shermer and others have done), a terrible, terrible error is being made - usually by those who don't want their dogmas critiqued. Perhaps you would prefer I say, "a thoroughgoing skeptic?"

Utopian Dreams

God is in everything.

God is in the bell used in circumcisions and the knife wielded in female genital mutilation. God is in the wail of agony and the state of shock of the baby. God is in the poverty, despair, and torment of the destitute. God is in the bot fly and the tapeworm and the virus. God is in the cancer cell. God is in the acid thrown in women's faces. God is in the umbilical cord wrapped around the unborn's neck. God is in nuclear weapons, and jelly babies, and natural (and unnatural) disasters.

God is in the idea that "glory" is about the ability to inflict suffering and death. God is in describing murder as "honour." God is in depicting psychopathy as divine inspiration. God is in morality as a bait and punish mentality. God is in visions of retribution as "justice." God is in human beings being seen as mere chaff in dogmatic meat grinders - as pieces in a numbers game. God is in every bullet in the brain pan of "the enemy." God is in every ingenious torture device devised to spread the "good news."

God is in the inquisition. God is in holocausts. God is in crusades. God is in jihads. God is in death fatwahs. God is in "moral" demands that others die. God is in every pogrom and in every belief that you are among the chosen ones. God is in throwing rocks at helpless people until they die. God is in inculcating fear, self-loathing and hatred in children. God is in violent polarization. God is in every dream of orthodoxy, of "winning" the competitions between religions - whatever the cost.

God is in every vague, metaphysical terror. God is in every superstition. God is in all horror. God is in every supernatural justification for violence, death, and imprisonment.

God is in every failed hope, every broken dream, every devastated life. God is in every loved-one's death, however slow and torturous. God is in every dream of dominance and control. God is in every rapist's heart.

God is in division, malice, and shunning. God is in every "murder by numbers." God is in every segregationist policy.

God is an engine of conflict.

We have to do better than God.

The Argument from Utopian Idealism

It's *never* the ideal's fault, is it? It's *never* the Vedas, or the Bible, or the Torah, or the Koran, is it? It's never God, is it?

It's never communism's or capitalism's fault, is it? After all, they've never *really* been tried, right?

It's never dictatorship's fault, is it? It is always that the dictator wasn't benign - just like every other time before.

If only we had a benign dictator this time. If only we had God. Right?

The Dark Heart of Totalitarianism

Let's face the fact of it. Every God believer is a totalitarianist. They all desire the benign dictator. God believers are simply not ready for democracy.

Pernicious Accommodationism

Isn't this enough?
Won't you shut up now?
What's your problem?
What more do you want?
Will you never be happy?

How often have we heard these kinds of questions directed at atheists from apologists, or their hand-puppets, accommodationists?

Well, here it is again.

Dvorsky Vilifies Atheists

The First Psychosis

I'm going to let you in on a not so carefully hidden secret: the Abrahamic "Binding of Isaac" story is about the primacy of God, all other priorities rescinded. Read that again: All other priorities rescinded. That includes the lives of one's own children. That the final murder was "prevented" is of no relevance. The essential betrayal of humanity, represented by Abraham's willingness to murder his own child, is the point of the story - not whether the child actually died. Of course, there are many children who do not fare so well in their parents' test of faith. Madeline Kara Neumann is one example.

Homicide by Prayer

Kara Neuman died of diabetic ketoacidosis. Juvenile diabetes. See the picture above? Kara Neumann was a human being, not a statistic, and not a chess-piece in some ideological game about parents' versus childrens' rights.

Diabetic Ketoacidosis

Uncontrolled blood sugar levels leads to acidity of the blood and vital organs shut down, resulting in death. It is very likely Kara was "ill for about 30 days, suffering symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, excessive thirst, loss of appetite and weakness." These are the words of the Everest Metro Police Chief, reporting on the autopsy of the 11 year old girl.

The family believed in “divine healing” by trusting the Lord, Leilani Neumann, Kara's mother, said. “I just felt that, you know, my faith was being tested. I never went through an experience like that before in my life and I just thought, man, this is the ultimate test,” she said. “We just started praying and praying and praying over her.’

Kara's mother didn't think about seeking medical help for Kara. Leilani Neumann felt that her, Leilani's, faith was being tested. Kara was a means to an end, in Leilani's view. It was a test that Kara failed. Where was Kara during this struggle? Remember her, the 11 year old girl? She was busy dying of a treatable, controllable, and well understood medical condition.

A parent placing her own faith above the well-being of her child. Sound familiar? Kara Neuman's story is not an isolated case. Prayer healing is a well-known and pernicious affliction that claims children's lives on a seemingly regular basis. Want to know the harm of prayer? There it is. And behind it all is a psychosis that has its roots in the primacy of God - a deliberate distancing of oneself from humanity.

Humanistic Anti-Humanism? Seriously?

Why mention the "Binding of Isaac" story with respect to Dvorsky's article? Because one of the priorities rescinded is humanism. This story is precisely about relegating humanism and humanity to a distant back burner, behind God. It is precisely about overriding all mere human considerations in favour of something that is, by definition, extra-human.

The Abrahamic religions wear their anti-humanism on their sleeves, for all to see, but this does not mean this is unique to the Abahamic trinity of holy horrors. God, itself, is a symbol of a normative ideal, for which, they say, humanity is to strive to achieve, you know, from our intrinsically flawed and lowly state. In most cases, it is impossible to achieve this presumably exalted state. In one religion, God is not anthropomorphized, but the exalted state (Bodhi) is intrinsically unverifiable. In all cases, mere humanity is denigrated - in all cases we are taught to view humanity as metaphysically, and normatively, perhaps inexorable and necessarily flawed.

And people call that "humanism?" By what stretch of the imagination is anti-human ideology, wallowing in eternal hatred of humanity's lowly state, "humanism?" Remember, how in a previous post, I spoke of religion annexing human qualities into its perverted lexicon? There it is again, another example - a "humanism" that has nothing to do with humans, and instead focuses on the extra-human. Imagine that.

The Wrong Reasons

People point at the "good" done by "religious humanism." The charity. Meanwhile, churches are shutting down charity services rather than help those in need because some of those helped might be homosexuals - you know, humans. Why? Because homosexuality is against their religious bigotry. If your reason for helping humans is not humans, then you are doing it for the wrong reason.

And the reason matters. Otherwise, we get charity services being shut down on the basis of bigotry.

The Accommodationist Rot

So, how do I see Dvorsky and his article?

Dvorsky is just another bought and paid for, worthless accommodationist telling atheists, "Don't you think you've gone far enough now?" Meanwhile he is still using religious, absolutism-laced language, and is still perpetuating, indeed promoting, stigma against atheists.

Accommodationists are the rot from within, advancing anti-human apologist ideology and trying to paint atheists as the aggressors against poor, besieged religion. At least with apologists you know where they stand. Accommodationists are not even that honest. Skeptic and humanist groups and associations are infested with these pernicious liars.

They pretend to be the rational center against all extremes, but it is remarkable how one "extreme" gets all of the sympathy and the other all of the bile. That is not a reasonable middle ground - that is open advocacy of the extreme that seeks to keep us slaves of a hobbled mentality forever, while trying to silence those who would examine, critique and advocate against that slavery.

No, we atheists are not done yet because the job is unfinished. Religion still holds our human qualities in thrall, including our humaneness, as if religions own them, and religion is still fundamentally anti-humanist. We aren't even close to done yet. Until the primacy of God over mere humans is done away with, the job is not done. Not by a long shot.

Humanism must be about humans - of humans, by humans, and for humans. Nothing else will suffice.

I'm an atheist, but...

"I'm against religion, but...." Dvorsky, you are the problem, because you seek to enable anti-humanist mentalities and ideologies, by vilifying atheism. Can you say "perpetuating stigma?" Sure. I knew you could. Dvorsky is as bad, or worse, than the accommodationists that infest the "scientific skeptic" organizations, making sure that the worst, biggest, most dangerous "woo" of them all remains "beyond the scope" of skeptical inquiry. Well, not on this blog. I accept no limitations on the scope of inquiry and have no respect to the disingenuous liars who do. Nor do I respect accommodationists who say things like "I'm an atheist, but..." and then go on to vilify atheists. The religious right's hand is so firmly wedged up Dvorsky's ass that his speech is right-handed.

So-called "skeptics" who artificially limit the scope of inquiry are not the friends of open and honest inquiry. So-called "humanists" who advocate for subjugating human concerns under the primacy of God are not friends of humanity.

Atheism & Humanism

Let's be clear: Atheism does not, itself, have humanist content. Atheism means lack of belief in god(s). Nothing more. However god(s) often do have perceived content, chief among them the primacy of the god. This is why theists think that atheism has content - because atheism doesn't affirm the content of god(s). This also ties in with the theist's inability to comprehend that atheism is a lack of belief; not a belief. Fallacy of false alternatives.

By removing the pernicious anti/extra-human ideal, atheism provides opportunity for humanism, opportunity denied us by theologies that assume the primacy of God. By removing God, we are free to see humans as something more than mere chaff in a dogmatic meat grinder. We are free to see them as ends in themselves, not just as disposable means to an end. That is a significant step forward. It is not the end of the story, but it is a start, a start we cannot have as long as we think humans are subordinate to god(s).

It is not time for humanism to move away from atheism. It is time for humanism to embrace atheism as a shrugging off of the anti-human ideal, a shrugging off that gives us room for humanity in our considerations, room to learn and grow, room to be joyfully, unashamedly human. It is an interesting thing that many, if not most, atheists end up having humanistic dispositions, despite the dire prognostications of the theistic. There is a reason for that. The essential religious hatred of humanity, centered in the primacy of God, is dismissed by atheists. We atheists have moved beyond that. Isn't it about time humanism moved away from humanity-hatred as well...?

Not according to Dvorsky.

Yeah, I know. Suggesting that humans take back their humanity is radical, and extreme, and evil...

Hijacking Humanity

I am a "from-the-cradle" atheist, which is to say I never had religion. Sadly, I have no grand deconversion story, nor can I claim any great deprogramming feat. No profound realizations or life-altering moments. My atheism story is rather simple, blunt and uninteresting - I was a neglected child. My role models were public personalities, from the fiercely human-centered, life-affirming Roger Waters to the calm, compassionate, visionary Carl Sagan. I could have done a lot worse. I was quiet, introverted (perhaps cowed), introspective, and non-combative.

However...

I am now a self-professed anti-theist, which is to say anti-theism (not to be confused with anti-the people who are theists - as one disingenuous twerp I encountered claimed, trying to paint me as attacking the people instead of the dogma).

I remember the last time I was in a church, for my uncle's wedding. I was there for my uncle and his new bride, for celebration of the beginning of their new life together and the love they shared. The priest decided to halt the proceedings to berate the audience about there being a non-believer present. What followed was a disgraceful hijacking of my uncle's ceremony for this parasite's dogmatic agenda. He actually felt he had a right to *use* this celebration for his *purposes.* I held my tongue, for the benefit of family, fuming at the sheer arrogance of this parasite. He saw my uncle's wedding as an opportunity - an opportunity! - to push his garbage and attack this unnamed non-believer. At that moment I realized, with absolute clarity, precisely what religion was and what it did. It annexed us, our lives and our humanity, and used us to push doctrine. I realized they would not stop - ever.

That monster really opened my eyes. I walked in a live-and-let-live atheist; I walked out an anti-theist, because I now knew there could never be peace with these monsters - they simply would not permit it. And it wasn't just this particular monster, it was a function of the dogma, prescribed by the dogma for the aggressive, expansionistic perpetuation and spreading of the dogma. I looked at the content of the religion, what it said, and there it was. There was even a word for it - evangelism, and other religions had it too with marginally different names. It would never be possible to live and let live with these dogmas - they expressly forbade it. I delved into it, studied it, broke it down. Later, I would learn the name of what I now think is the base disease behind it all: prescriptivity.

And there were many variants of these prescriptive dogmas, all absolutely determined to never live and let live, all redefining us in their terms, and all using human lives as their currency.

I vowed never again to hold my tongue while these monsters stole our humanity away from us, redefined it for the benefit of the dogma, chewed it up and spit it out as if it were mere expendable chaff. I was now an anti-theist, because there are really only two choices in the eyes of the theist: anti-theism or theism. You are either a cog in the dogmatic machine or you oppose the machine itself.

So be it. I didn't pick this fight. It was brought to me, precisely because of the nature of the monstrosity that is religion.

We must reclaim our humanity, define it in our terms. We must remove god the middle man, and the parasites that prey upon us - the very ones who instill vague, metaphysical fears in us, who tell us we are intrinsically and inexorably flawed in the face of some unattainable ideal, in order to sell us vague, metaphysical band-aids. We must burn the twisted lexicons of religions and seize our birthright - who we are. All the qualities that we admire, and even the ones we despise, are not "through" god, they are from us. We are not mere conduits. It is well past time to ditch the parasites...