Nobody Reads This

I’ve decided that I will try to move my Atheist blogging to another place since I have a better chance at a real reader base if I focus on something per blog rather than completely random things which have a tendancy to drive off people.

Then again I don’t really care if anyone reads this … It’s my personal blog. Why do I even have a personal blog?

Anyway check out [21st C Atheist], i’m still working on a few things but comments about the layout and extremely rubbish header graphic would be appreciated (although ignored).

Thanks to Dwayne from Probably Sucks for dropping by

Regards,
JamesR.

On the topic of Probably Sucking … 41 Reasons why your Blog Probably Sucks (not from Dwayne :p) 

So this was an interesting article about the artist Jonathon Keats creating a“Church” for science. More interesting than the cosmic radiation stain glass windows (I’m not kidding) is the discussion that followed about the possibility of replacing religion with science. The responses were very well articulated but seemed to be coming from a person who didn’t have his feet firmly on the ground when he was answering.

It's dazzling, if a bit confusing.

Here’s an excerpt from one of the artist’s responses:

Keats: I don’t practice religion in any organized way, and wouldn’t call myself spiritual in the sense of owning a yoga mat. On the other hand, I understand and appreciate the way in which religion can experience mystery, and can be a source of strength. In those broad terms, I have deep respect and sympathy for religion.

His is a very common position – That of an apparently atheist who understands and appreciates the positive role that religion can play in people’s lives. I don’t share his view, but I very much respect and understand it (being that I was once of the same opinion), nowadays I see the strength that comes with Religion as a fallacy because after all you are drawing your strength from the reassurance of the nonexistent. The same system employed by psychic surgeons and the like. This is besides my point; he goes on to discuss some interesting things:

Wired.com: People don’t just find mystery in religion — they find a moral framework, or an easing to grief. What can science do there?

Keats: Maybe the first thing science can do is recognize that, parse it, and be scientific in terms of asking good questions. Why do we believe the things we do morally, or that guide us and give us comfort?

I find this question odd because it assumes we haven’t or aren’t already doing precisely this and in many cases have potential answers. We need only consider the old truth that Religion is just a way to control the masses and we can then logically trace back the morals imposed by religion to whomever was leading it at the beginning. These people are then driven by several factors when deciding on morals – Our imperatives both Biological and Sociological and in many cases their own gain.

I find it particularly amusing that each of the main Religions comes with a life-time contract at pain of eternal torture – Who would sign up to a mobile phone package with the same terms? Then there are a series of general rules that we would arguably expect a society to follow such as not stealing from each other and not killing someone.

A theist would stand up and ask me “Yes but WHY do you say those things if not for Religion/God/Something else? Surely we would have no rules without it!”

This is another common fallacy because society (civilization etc) can not exist without fundamental guidelines – Did you ever wonder why it’s not illegal to sleep with another guy’s wife or to be a jerk to your neighbour? These things are not inherently bad for a society, they aren’t great for it by any means but short of losing a friend what’s the worst thing that could happen? However by killing your neighbour or stealing from him you have removed critical resources which in turn have a great detrimental affect on the rest of the people around you.

One could extend the things I’ve covered to classify the rules outlined by religions into one of three categories; Required, Optional and Selfish. Required are those that society could not rightly operate without, optional are those with seemingly no selfish motive but are generally not necessary and selfish are exactly that – In place only for personal gain (or gain of the religion).

Anyway, I hadn’t intended to rant too much about this, I left a small comment on the article under JamesR – Here is a small excerpt from the Atheon’s website and I hope you enjoy it.

THE ATHEON IS A SECULAR TEMPLE DEVOTED TO SCIENTIFIC WORSHIP. DELIVERING SPIRITUAL FULFILLMENT THROUGH EXPOSURE TO THE LATEST RESEARCH IN FIELDS RANGING FROM COSMOLOGY TO QUANTUM MECHANICS, THE ATHEON OFFERS A NONDENOMINATIONAL ALTERNATIVE TO THEOCENTRIC RELIGIONS SUCH AS JUDAISM, CHRISTIANITY AND ISLAM. OUR CREDO IS TO MAKE FAITH RATIONAL.

Regards,
JamesR. 

Irrationally rational to the bittersweet end.