453 - Another Step in my Atheism - precisions

[I used 2 copyright free images, merged and added my title.]

[Braces yourselves for a long (2,173 words, 13,154 characters) and controversial entry... get your cuppa... and start]

From previous entries, either about my upbringing in a religious cult or subsequent entries about being an atheist, you know quite a lot about me, either directly from all of the relevant entries, or indirectly. Today, I want to bring further precisions, both to you, and to myself.

As my wife pointed out to me, being an atheist is merely part of the equation : it describes something that I'm not. In Being an atheist = I'm not a believer in any of the gods/deities, saints, angels, from any religion (current or past). 

It doesn't fully depict what I do believe in and what I stand for. 

Before I detail each term, I'll announce that I'm irreligious, anti-theist, anti-organized religions, and blasphemous. In atheism, I am a "positive atheist". Equally, I'm a secular humanist, critical thinker, skeptic, pro-science and progress (with reservations).

I am irreligious - shortly defined a indifferent or hostile to religion, or having no religious beliefs. That is because there are several forms if irreligiosity. For mine, I follow the general trend of social scientists, that my worldview is that of naturalism, which excludes a belief in anything supernatural. (to full definitions of each, you check read wiki for ex : irreligion will redirect to them as you read, in hyperlinks). Basically, when I say that my worldview is naturalist, it means that natural laws and forces govern the universe we are in, and mostly probably, different sets govern other universes, if the scientific theory of the multiverse is right about their existence. Thus, no supernatural law or rule has to explain the marvels of the universe/s, nor its details. Only science can explain, as we learn more and more. In being irreligious, I reject the notion that what exists depends on the creators named in any religion. 

Let me explain where I see the difference between atheism and antitheism, after you read wiki's definition.  If atheism is "not believing in god'' antitheism is the opposition (anti-) to the very notion that god/s exist - where theism "is broadly defined as the belief in the existence of a supreme being or deities". This rejection is based on critical thinking, on skepticism. Simply put, I see a lot more evidence that god/s do not exist, than the imagined "assertions", which are in fact subjective experiences people have, and which are further based on the conditioning brought upon by cultures of believers who raise their children in a sustained loop of religious beliefs. 

Contrary to what some faith-driven believers may think or assume, I don't 'hate' god... in order to hate someone, that someone must exist and not only I don't think god does, but evidence is so strongly against his existence - that is, outside of human's fertile imagination- that I cannot and will never accept assertions to a god, who could, all omnipotent as he's supposed to be, show himself in clear ways, where NO ONE has any doubt whatsoever... Instead, we have multiple religions, with multiple gods, and other multiple religions claiming to one and only god - yet, each using a different set of names, and refuse to accept the other religion - simply because of bias of being born into one, people tend to reject all the others. "I'm not A, because I was born B". That bias is the one that explains why most people only interact/see/hear the deities and/or demons/satan/etc from their own set of beliefs...

Which, oddly enough, doesn't stop people from converting to another religion...Well, if you were right back then, what makes you change to think this one is right ? if you are right now, weren't you wrong before ? Oh, no, wait... See ? this is precisely what shows you, or should show, that religious believes are subjective and inherently wrong. They're based on faith - strong (even BLIND) belief in the existences of one or many deities, of the precepts and doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof of the existence of said deity/deities, nor of the truthful and use of the precepts and doctrines - whichever they may be in that particular religion. 

Gods have been born in human fancy to explain nature and other events they couldn't comprehend nor even conceive. By now, thousands of gods have perished - first with the arrival of other religions and cultures, usually by war and conquest, and/or cultural assimilation/merging, and later with the advent of critical thinking and science. Aside for a few polytheistic religions still alive, in most  other countries, only one god remains, under so many names. One day, eventually, this one will perish too - once humans won't need to invent him anymore. Or rather, this is a hope I have, but doubt it'll happen any time soon. 

I specified that I am anti-organized religions. Organized religions, also known as institutional religions, are where belief systems and rituals are systematically arranged and formally established. What I hate there are rituals of all kinds (they're there to control people, making them into drones and aimed to strip from individuality and from questioning) ; I also hate the entire organizations, institutions, hierarchies which promote said control over people, their lives, to do's and other directive rules  - and all the don'ts do, or else your soul will be in danger! 

I hate the control they exert over people as individuals, as well as entire nations. Our history is peppered by the toxicity they created in the past and perpetuate in modern days. Countries where laws are governed by religious dogma have some of the worst human conditions, especially towards women, minorities, LGBTQIA+, etc. 

But, because I know that if it can happen, it'd take time for the human race to get rid of all religions and their inherent ailments, I absolutely stand for a complete and total separation between religion and state, so laws wouldn't be guided by religious dogma and bigotry... faster said than done! 

Speaking of organizations, for a while, I had thought of following my wife's footsteps, by joining The Global Order of Satan. Before you jump out of this blog and block me for eternity, out of fear that I may sacrifice animals and babies to satan, or out of fear for my poor soul, let me explain this. 

This Order is an atheist organization, who don't believe in satan as the person in the bible. There, satan is the opposition to a tyrannical, vengeful god and they both exist. We as atheists don't believe in either's existence, but use satan as the symbolic embodiment of the opposition to the belief in god - which is antitheism. 

The Global Order and myself don't sacrifice animals, nor babies, to anyone. First, because, as I said, we don't believe satan exists and must be appeased with such offerings. Second, because two of the Pillars of the Global Order are all about respecting others' bodies, and having compassion. 

All that being said, however, and though I agree with their Pillars, I prefer not to actually join them for the following reason : they consider themselves a religion. I prefer to say that I agree with the philosophy behind their pillars, but do not wish to be part of a religion. You can read about these pillars and organization on their website. 

Indeed, the term religion comes from Middle English (originally in the sense ‘life under monastic vows’), itself from Old French, or from Latin religio(n- ) ‘obligation, bond, reverence’, perhaps based on Latin religare ‘to bind’. 

From Wiki's entrance on Religion : 

Religion (from O.Fr. religion religious community, from L. religionem (nom. religio) "respect for what is sacred, reverence for the gods, sense of right, moral obligation, sanctity", "obligation, the bond between man and the gods" is derived from the Latin religiō, the ultimate origins of which are obscure. One possible interpretation traced to Cicero, connects lego read, i.e. re (again) with lego in the sense of choose, go over again or consider carefully. The definition of religio by Cicero is cultum deorum, "the proper performance of rites in veneration of the gods.

So, although I agree with some of the Global Order's precepts and the need for their actions towards separation of theist religions from influencing political decisions in the countries they are present in, I do not consider myself a member - solely  based on my own interpretation of religion's etymology and the Order being one. 

Another reason is that I don't like to belong to official groups of any sort - I like to be my own definition, even when it's a work in progress.

So, thus far I explained about my irreligiosity, antitheism and anti-organized religions. Now, I'll address the fact that I'm also blasphemous - where blasphemy is the action or offence of speaking sacrilegiously about god or sacred things; profane talk. I'll make jokes and puns about things which believers would find offensive if they heard it. I may not say them in front of people who'd harm me for my words, but where my blasphemes aren't a risk, I'll just go ahead and say them. In general, I don't care that what I say or do is against someone's beliefs - because when blind faith drives people to action, it's often harmful and saying offensive words about non-existent deities is harmless. 

Which brings me, very organically, to the topic of positive atheism, to be most precise, and not merely say 'atheism'. Wiki explains here the difference between negative or weak atheism, with positive atheism, aka strong or hard atheism. Thus, based on critical thinking and empirical observation and scientific method of finding proof, I assert that there are, and have never been, any god, gods, deities - but also, in my anti-paranormal, demons, satan, angels, and any other such supernatural creatures, as described in religions. I won't, however, exclude the possibility that some paranormal creatures as imagined have a moral natural, scientific explanation, and socio-psychological ones to elucidate the mysterious human need to invent such creatures and beliefs. 

I'm a secular humanist. What is that ? it's nonreligious, espousing no belief in a realm or beings imagined to transcend ordinary experience. Secular humanism is a life stance [...] or eupraxsophy: a body of principles suitable for orienting a complete human life. So, basically it's a philosophy of life, promoting human reason, secular ethics, and philosophical naturalism while specifically rejecting religious dogma, supernaturalism, and superstition as the basis of morality and decision making. It's a particularly important aspect to explain to religious people the difference between, on the one hand, their religious dogma and rules for what is moral VS immoral, what they should or shouldn't do - usually based on a fear to offend god and end in the underworld/hell/etc as a punishment for these religious immoral words and actions, and on the other hand, the logically-based rules of morality, that we as humans can decide and evolve over time as we learn more about our  nature and the nature of possible harm to others, and thus we can act according to human rules, not based on fear of gods' retribution. 

More about secular humanism on wiki and on official secular humanism's website. 

I'l combine the last 4 points of critical thinker, skeptic, pro-science and progress (with reservations), because they're interconnected.

Indeed, critical thinking is, as stated in wiki, the analysis of available facts, evidence, observations, and arguments to form a judgment. The subject is complex; several different definitions exist, which generally include the rational, skeptical, and unbiased analysis or evaluation of factual evidence. Critical thinking is self-directed, self-disciplined, self-monitored, and self-corrective thinking. So, critical thinking uses skepticism, which is a questioning attitude. Affirmations come only after much reflection, scientifically researching for evidence, based on facts, observations and cross-checking multiple sources, before asserting something to be true. This is in total opposition to blind faith one has to have in religious belief : deciding that god/deities/their prophets etc exist, have and shall exist, that we're here to serve, obey, admire, or be punished, based solely on the belief, on blind faith, that they must be there... with 0 proof necessary. 

I am pro-science and progress, but I do have reservations. I want research to be done, so science can answer questions, bring answers to mysteries and functions of our planet, our solar system, the universe/s, but on the macrocosm that we are as creatures living here, answers on our bodies, to help improve health and life conditions - for all, not just a group of humans, not just humans, but also other animals who live on the planet alongside us. 

My reservations are that we should find the proper priorities in which scientific advancement must be done, and with best possible combination of progress, cost, environmental impact, and in accordance with moral guidelines - made with secular humanist views, not religiously based. 

I hope this helps you better understand where I am with my Positive Atheism today, and thank you for having read such a long entry.