The Anti-Theist

Fuck the fourth wall, for a minute.

I'm not sure who, if anyone, really reads this. I don't know what each of you think about science, religion, society, et cetera. What I can assume, unless this is the first time you're reading my blog, is that you know my thoughts on many things. Particularly about religion. The short of it is: I am a militant anti-theist.

Why "militant"? Because the whole idea of religion grates on me, and anywhere it crops up, I have an (impossibly) hard time not attacking it. That's not to say I support, advocate, or encourage such things as genocide, church burning, or other equally offensive attitudes: I most certainly do not. However, I am a very (physically) large, very loud, voice who refuses to be silent about how I feel. I refuse to remain silent about the hypocrisy, childishness, insanity, idiocy, and generally reprehensible nature of religion; and due to my insane need to always point out the fallibility of religion, I say "militant".

I am anti-theist because I believe the world would be better off without religion. That's not to say I think that there should be thought-crimes, that personal private beliefs should be banned, or anything so draconian. That is to say, that I believe the whole of humanity would be far better served if no one "fell" for the con that is religion- and supernatural belief. I know this will never happen; but I also know that it is worth working towards. If 1% of 1% of the entire population of the Earth, today, would put away the nonsense and start living rationally that's an additional 650,000 people (roughly); and that's a worthwhile goal.

Okay, and?

There's a lot of chatter about being "good", "kind", "friendly" atheists. This is an aspect of an outreach initiative championed by many non-theistic communities. Huh? There's been studies that show, given an otherwise satisfactory voting record, people in the US are most likely to NOT vote for someone if they are an atheist. Atheists are the least trusted minority in the US, yet we make up something like 10%- or more- of the population. This is, partially, why words like Brights, Secular, Humanists, Non-theists, and others are thrown around. The atheist community is trying to re-brand itself, a la the Homosexual community that adopted the word "Gay" and made itself less frightening to Heterosexuals.

What happens, is groups like The Atheist Alliance, Minnesota Atheists, CSI (formerly CSICOP), and others talk about being generally less aggressive. The consensus being that we're misunderstood, and people of faith are scared we're out to kill their children and rape their farm implements. Which isn't totally wrong, of course; though, we prefer consenting relations with shovels, obviously. The idea is: "let them see you're a friendly face, and basically just like them", with the hope/faith/hypothesis this will engender understanding and less fear. And the assumption that such things would cause more listening to our points of view.

The opposing side- which I sit on- says "Fuck you, and fuck that!" (Feel free to insert comment about guiding atheists being similar to herding cats). This is, in my opinion, partially due to a need for revenge. Revenge for what? Wasted time/lives, hatred, discrimination, lost opportunity (see time/lives), so on and so on. In other words, the usual human motivations for oppressing the oppressor.

Which side is "right"?

Obviously there's no 100%, black or white, solution. Neither side is right, neither side is wrong. The Kinder Gentler Post-religion-ists make very valid points about inclusion, etc, etc. My side is viscerally appealing, very human and sympathetic for that, etc, etc. We're wrong because of ethics/morals. They're wrong because not "sitting down" and "taking it" are always wrong. Notice how easily these things can be argued for/against? Notice, also, that neither side has much objective proof for their position? That's a good indication that both sides are wrong/right.

And let's get something straight: They are right. The Kindler Gentler Side is absolutely correct about most of their points, but especially about the effects such positive, kind, gentle, thoughtful outreach would/could/does have. We're absolutely wrong, we on the side of yelling and throwing shit.

But we're punk rock, so fuck them.

The problem is that both things are needed, and they need to remain separate. The KG's, as I will henceforth call them, will win more hearts and minds, and further the goals of all of us; but there are assholes out there on the side of religion who will continue to rant, lie, rave, lie, scream, lie, accuse, lie, and generally annoy the shit out of me- most often by blatantly lying.

Here's the solution:
The KG's and Us represent extreme viewpoints. Extremes NEVER work, if they did statistics wouldn't be NEARLY as important when discussing society(s). A moderate viewpoint is needed, and- according to the statistics- is expressed/held by the majority of people already. So, we're good there, anyway. But, there's more.

I promise- and I can only speak for myself (if you think that atheists in general are hard to herd, try my side of the moral divide)- to focus my vitriol at those who obviously deserve it. I will not walk up to someone and start yelling at them for no reason because 90% of the time they will be religious and therefore deserving of my anger. I will, however, aggressively attack anyone who even slightly deserves it. (I am militant, remember?) In return for this, KG's, I will not interfere should you be talking kindly and gently to people I'm not currently yelling at; and I will (sometimes) accept it if enough of you tell me I'm wrong to yell at a certain person.

I will continue to rail against tax-exempt churchs, christian day care facilities, the 700 club, anyone who doesn't sarcastically refer to themselves while using the title "Reverend" (or similar), the fuckstick priest who is saying Catholics shouldn't get communion if they voted for Obama, and the like.

Aggression actually does have its uses. Meekly "turning the other cheek" is a bunch of bullshit that has never worked for ANYONE. (Not even Ghandi, and you probably want to do a little research that doesn't involve drinking the kool-aid before you try thinking next time). Meekly turning the other cheek while there is an obvious, demonstrative, threat of violence/aggression has worked for nearly everyone- most especially anyone generally named as "non-violent".

And no, violence doesn't always have to be physical. In fact, I particularly enjoy inflicting psychological violence upon people, where the scars are far less obvious and far more debilitating.

So, I agree to do my best to only assault those who, in the parlance of Louisiana, "Need [Assaulting]". And you should simply ignore me, saying only "The views of a minority of radical and extreme elements, obviously, do not represent the sophisticated bullshit we're totally prepared to massage between your asscheeks should you just turn around and spread 'em for us..."