Double Standards... Does Religion get undeserved respect and power?

Alright.. lets rewind to the freshman year of my highschool.

I had a gym class in which for three weeks we had a unit on square dancing.. anyone who knows me knows that I dislike dancing with a passion. I just can't dance... I don't know why, and I don't like dancing. If I can help it I'd avoid it for a long long time..

Anyway, what happened is that students who had a "religious" excuse were permitted to not dance, and could partake in a supplementary activity, which was working out. So without saying a word as to why I was doing it, I partook in the supplementary activity. I knew the other two guys who were doing it to. Neither of them were very religious, but because of their parents religion, they were able to squirm out of dancing, no questions asked.

On the other hand there was me. My parents are hindu, (they're very liberal, which is awesome) and well, I was an atheist in practice, an agnostic when questioned, though I preferred to avoid the "what religion are you?" question all together, and where I could help it, I would pretend not to listen to it, or would quickly change topics, or exit the vicinity of the question by actually leaving. It isn't that I was ashamed to admit that I don't believe in any kind of a god, just as I'm not ashamed to admit that I don't believe in Santa Claus, or that I don't believe in unicorns and fairies.

 I just know of the social stigma that comes with being an atheist.. you know, people see you as a immoral, baby eater who is going to fall to eternal torment (granted that this is the US, and the majority of it's inhabitants are followers of some kind of abrahamic religion). Though I must disagree. I do have morals, you can thank my parents for that. You can thank them for being good people and passing that down to me. Also I would never eat a baby. that just sounds plain nasty, and eternal torture, well, there's no evidence for it, so it's probably not going to happen.

Anyway, I digress. What happened then, is that I was put in a bind.. apparently to not fail, I NEEDED a note from a religious leader saying that I was exempt. Darn it. I knew there would be a catch. However, it wasn't going to end like this.. I was about to challenge their logic. So on the spot I made up a "religion", in accordance to this "religion", I was not allowed to dance. Now what? they would have to be hypocritical to fail me for those three weeks. Unfortunately it seemed that the school had no issue with that. I was called into a conference with my teacher and counselor. Well, a chance to defend myself. To defend the fact that personal convictions should be valued just as much, if not more, than religious convictions. The only difference
between me and the other two students was that they had years of tradition on their side. I did not. However their motives could not be questioned, because that would be attacking their beliefs.. yet my own personal beliefs, they had no problem tossing aside as though they were trash. The hammer was brought down on me, and well, thinking that I was completely alone, at that moment. when they threatened to fail me, I broke down.
I felt truly alone. At the time, I thought I was the only person in my entire school, maybe my entire town, heck maybe even the entire state, who found religion to be fairytales taken way too seriously. It was a feeling unlike any other.. A feeling of hopelessness. One that I wouldn't forget for a while. I guess, one could say I could somewhat empathize with the witches during the witch hunts.

Luckily for me, they were somewhat understanding. They told me never to pull a stunt like that. And since I had done the supplementary activity, I was allowed to get a passing grade, a D, for those 3 weeks of gym. On the other hand the other two students got an A for those 3 weeks, only because they had a religion behind them. That sounds a little too similar to discrimination I would say.

Though you must understand, I have nothing against the school nor the people that worked there. What I'm attacking is the double standard that society has set forth, the one where we are forbidden from questioning faith (which by the way is the illogical belief in something in the face of no/ contradictory evidence) From my example you can see what happens though. One persons "faith" is worthless and that person could be considered illogical, or stupid or insane. However when many people have faith and they organize.. it suddenly becomes reasonable and taboo to say otherwise.

As it happens our society give waaaaaaay too much respect to faith. Even more so than to reason. I think that this double standard needs to change. We need to if anything, respect the individuals convictions. However none of this should be done on religious ground. Why is that pacifists are fair game to be drafted, yet priests are not? Why is it that one's political stance can be criticized, but one's religion cannot. Heck, society will go as far to slander the morals of secularists/atheists/agnostics  but it won't even lift so much as a finger if those morals that are derived from a religion. (for more on that check out my older blog, "atheists have no morals?")
This kind of discrimination needs to end. And REASON needs to be valued over FAITH.

The Meaning of Life- Part 1: Evolution?

Yay, Time to speak out on another issue concerning science and it's clash against faith.

Now, this is a legitimate concern in our society, there are people that think that evolution is a hoax. That humans are not animals and did not originate from "monkeys". Actually, their claim is that they could not have, how is it possible that humanity spawned from the monkeys..... because you know.. that's totally what evolution is. One day there was a monkey and the next day they were human beings.. that's completely ridiculous. and yes.. that is.. to assume that evolution takes place that rapidly would be to spit in the face of science. Of course that's not true. That's not science, that is not evolution.

Evolution is a process that takes millions of years. It's gradual, and it's cumulative. It's not like one day, randomly there is random mutation and a monkey gives birth to a monkey man.. No.. not at all. In fact in all reality, it's no surprise many dismiss the theory of evolution so easily and would rather go with the idea of having a deity create everything. However this is because evolution is incorrectly taught in many places.. or at least not enough time is spent on it. I mean.. the facts are all there.. it is a theory that explains far more than creationism ever could, mostly because unlike creationism it does not rely on having an all powerful and untestable source.

 Evolution has evidence, that is something creationism lacks (no sacred texts do not account for evidence)
Anyways, evolution works, it really does. however it is not possible to see it's effects in one lifetime, but rather over thousands of lifetimes. Think about it.. think about the animals that roamed the earth millions of years ago and those that roam it today.. the ones today are vastly different than they were millions of years ago, at least for the most part. Can creationism explain how that is possible? Not really. (Also before you bash me for not giving the creationist theory equal chance, and yell about the missing links and stuff, please go do some real thorough research on evolution, look at the evidence and read the real theories of evolution and natural selection, and go find this on a reputable website or book. Besides, I know you have the internet at your disposal if you are reading this. Also please don't bring sacred text jargon in as evidence.. it really isn't.. )

Anyway.. think of evolution as a cumulative process. Think of it like this.. say you have an hourglass of red sand, 10,000 grains of it to be exact, and once every generation, one of those red grains is switched out for a grain of pink sand. now from one generation to the next, heck even spanning a gap of 100 generations, it would be hard to tell the difference between the hourglass.. however if one were to take the hourglass as it was at the beginning of the process and as it was at the end, they are two different things. One has red sand the other has pink, and all the hourglasses that came in between are intermediate stages. However while after a few thousand generations in between the difference between the hourglasses is apparent, between a just a few generations, the difference is hard to notice..

Anyway.. that's all for now, I'll get back to this topic, once I add in how natural selection and all that jazz works maybe people will come to understand evolution in layman's terms, but at least properly, and not have a skewed view of the sciences.


Note: As I cannot possibly give an in depth look into them, Please study the scientific subjects I have touched on more thoroughly on your own time, it will be rewarding,  



        

Atheists have no morals?

I'm writing this post here out of a kind of frustration that has resulted from many fundamentalists belittling me for being an atheist, and for using  hard scientific evidence and theory and statistics to back up my claims of morality rather than faith, religious beliefs and a popularity poll that somehow fallaciously claims that the more people believe in something the more honest it gets. 

I also don't like how these fundamentalists are allowed to attack science, yet the second I try to turn the tide, by questioning where their evidence is, they simply say that they could be right because I can't disprove them. So I asked them, in that case why do you not believe in the gods of other religions, you can't prove that they don't exist either.. again, they say that it is a matter of faith.. 

Anyway, this happened when we were debating divine command theory. 

The theory that anything that morals are derived from god. god tells humans what is right and wrong. 

Even giving them the benefit of the doubt, that their deities could exist. (Please refer to science if you want to know why I don't believe in such a being). I had to point out that the probability of the sacred texts not being true, or being misinterpretations of events, or even fairytales is more likely than them being the truth. Of course that was shot down, because they were right because they had faith that they were right, and were unwilling to listen to evidence that contradicted their beliefs. 

also since that day every time the moral question of sacrificing an innocent life is brought up, their one and only argument is that god condemns those who kill... that's it they won't lay a hand on an innocent person because they are afraid of eternal damnation. One of them even said.. what's to stop people from killing others if not for God. Then they went on question where atheists got their morals from. And this is a question that has been asked by fundamentalists over and over and over again, and we have answered, over and over and over again. And the answer is that our morals our based on reason. They are based on being tolerant, open minded, and decent human beings, because we value this one life that we have, and wish to live it to the fullest. 

Also if somehow it were scientifically proving that their religions were hoaxes. What would happen to their morals then? The atheists would still retain theirs, regardless of weather or not a divine being exists. 

All I'm saying is I am tired of the double standard that is constantly imposed against those who would listen to evidence in favor of those who won a popularity contest of belief and faith. Even after many of those beliefs and faith have had evidence presented against them. 

  Also in case anyone tries to start bashing science after reading my rant, please make sure you understand the actual scientific theory, and not just an "interpretation" or "opinion" of it. and if you wish to argue against it, please formulate a proper scientific experiment, and run several trials and then get evidence that after properly analyzed would refute a certain theory, and I guarantee that the scientific community (after following the proper scientific procedures) will revise their theory if the evidence after thorough research shows need for revision.