You’re a militant atheist!

All an atheist has to do is say “I’m atheist” and we’re “offending the religious”. All an atheist has to do is say “you’re forcing your beliefs on others, and I won’t stand for it anymore” and we’re labeled as “militant atheists”. The term is laughable. When we start blowing up their places of worship, or flying planes into buildings, THEN you can say we’re “militant”. Until then, we’re outspoken.

For me, you can call me a militant atheist all you like, I’ll just laugh at you. I am extremely outspoken. If someone personally (as in, not online, really in person) brings up religion around me, 9 times out of 10 they’re doing it with the assumption that everyone agrees with them. Most are shocked to find out that I do NOT agree with them, even though they know I’m atheist. If they open up that topic, they WILL get my views.

However, if I’m invited to a wedding, or if I must attend a funeral, or even if my religious family and friends want to pray before their meal, I just keep my trap shut and let them have their superstitions. If they were to insist that I also take part in their ritualistic behavior, I will tell them “no”. So far, I’ve been lucky that no one so far has insisted.

Just last week, I had a christian friend say to me, “You don’t celebrate christmas?!”, as if she was truly shocked. Now this woman has known I’m atheist since we reconnected on MySpace back in 2006. At that point, I snapped at her. I mean, really? Really? Do you not see the things I post on Facebook?!

When I post on MY Facebook page, or MY blog, or MY anything online, I do so to educate (mostly) people about the ridiculousness of religion. Yes, I also use sarcasm, mocking and humor. I have tried being nice, and using logic and reason (it doesn’t work), and I find that the way to get people to actually THINK about their beliefs is to shock them out of their comfort zone.

If people don’t want to see the things I post on MY OWN PAGE, they have a couple of options:
1) They can ignore my posts by scrolling past them
2) They can ignore my posts by choosing “Ignore this person”
3) They can un-friend me
4) They can block me
None of it offends me. Really. Ok, I was offended by one person that blocked me, but for reals, my own father shouldn’t block me completely.

It is a very rare situation that I go off on someone on THEIR page, or THEIR blog. That only happens when they’ve specifically asked for opinions, AND if I know them well enough to know that neither of us takes disagreement and/or debate personally. I have some christian friends that I debate with frequently, on my page and theirs. I will also give someone a piece of my mind if they are specifically bashing atheists. On occasion, I will mock someone if they are bashing another religion while completely ignoring that their own religion does the same thing as the one they’re bashing.

See, I’m an equal opportunity anti-religion atheist. I don’t put down christian beliefs while defending muslim beliefs. I put them ALL down, across the board. Which is kinda funny at times, when a christian will see me going after a muslim belief, and they think, “Ooo, she’s on MY side!” Don’t worry, you’ll get your turn in the spotlight, and it will be sooner rather than later, I promise you. I’m not on the “side” of any religion!

Which brings me to the erroneous belief that I think ALL religion is extremist. No. I think that all religion BREEDS extremism. I think that all religion is dangerous for society as a whole. I think that there are some truly good religious people. Not many, but there are some. I also think that I know more atheists who act like better religious people than the religious people I know. I’ve been fortunate to get to know some religious people who are truly good people. I’ve also been unfortunate to get to know some atheists who are not good people. What I will say is that religion isn’t the reason for the good christians, muslims, jews, etc., nor is it to blame for the bad atheists. It IS however, usually to blame for the bad christians, muslims, jews, etc.

Lastly, for those who say, “But your militant atheism is bad for the cause!” I must point you in the direction of a piece I read just the other day, by Greta Christina – What Are The Goals of the Atheist Movement?.

My goal is to get people to think about what they believe and why. I want people to examine every little nook and cranny of their superstition. I want them to confront the contradictions and hypocrisies. I want people to learn everything there is to know about the history of their religion, including their holidays. I want people to stop lying to themselves because it makes them feel good.

And if I must be “militant” to do that, then so be it. I’ve lost my patience for religious beliefs. I’m beyond my breaking point for religious apologists, especially when it comes to atheists who prefer to just shut up and let the religious bulldoze us at every turn. I tired of people pussy-footing around the topic of religion because of some false sense of politeness. I think we must start standing up for ourselves as atheists. Yes, let people know you’re an atheist, and live your life in such a way that proves that atheists are not horrible people with no morals or values. But stop letting the religious walk all over you and everyone that’s not like them. Be outspoken! Get called a “militant atheist” a few times in your life!  Your children will thank you for making their lives a better place to live.

Two Americas

I was watching a show on Current tv this morning, called “Two Americas“. It showed the lives of 1 very rich family, and 1 very poor family. In the poor family, the man had a job where he was making $55k a year, and I believe the woman may have had a job as well. Then he got laid off. Their dream home went into foreclosure, and they moved to Texas to find work.

The man was in construction, and spent 5 months looking for work, sending out hundreds of resumes, and getting only 3 interviews, which he never heard back from. They were desperate for money, as the pitiful job the wife had was also lost, and they were trying to get by on the $19k he was getting from unemployment. They have 2 children.

During some interviews with the man, he said he hated that he was on unemployment, and would much rather have a job where he could earn a living and care for his family. He also hated being on food stamps ($178 a month), and snarkily replied, “Thanks Texas” about the small amount.

Every bill was past due, and they needed to come up with hundreds just to keep from having their electric, water, and phone from being shut off. He sought out help from his mother, who was living on SS. She was able to contribute some, but not enough. He went to a charity, and was lucky to get $75, which was a once a YEAR allowance from the charity.

At the end of the show, they were watching one of the GOP debates. When Newt said that he disagreed with giving people unemployment, the poor man said, “I totally agree! Our government is too big. We shouldn’t have to rely on our government. If they didn’t help, someone else would have to step in to help their neighbors!”  When Romney said that the rich shouldn’t be taxed at a higher rate, the poor wife replied, “They already pay their fair share. We all pay the same rate, right?”

*facepalm!*  This man had scoured his area to find help, and none was out there! Does he REALLY think that without unemployment and welfare, that charities would help people MORE than what they’re able to do now?! Did he really think his neighbors would help him, since they were all having their utilities shut off for non-payment as well?! What kind of people fight/vote against their own best interest, and the best interest of their neighbors?!  What kind of people take unemployment and welfare, then say we don’t need them and shouldn’t have them?!  What kind of person doesn’t know that the rich pay far less of a percentage of their income than the middle class?!

I can only assume that these people are completely ignorant. Or brainwashed. Or both. I feel sad for them. But if they vote in the next election for someone who would strip away everything they need just to survive, then they deserve what they get.

For more info and a discussion about the show: http://current.com/shows/vanguard/big-featured-discussion/93567183_what-did-you-think-of-two-americas.htm

Free Markets and Captive Market Labor

The author of this piece is Nathan Nicholls. The original post can be read on Facebook if you have an account there.

     A market consists of supply, demand, providers and consumers. The business exchange rate in a free market is initially set by the provider and then either accepted or declined by the consumer who has the freedom to go elsewhere to meet their consumption need. The reason that the provider must set the initial rate is that they know the energy they apply and the compensation they must receive to stay in business. If the consumer were to actually set compensation for a given provision, the most likely outcome would be that the provision would cease because the consumer would naturally want to set the rate lower than the provider could provide it.

In a free market, the consumer does not set, but rather only affects the exchange rate through the freedom to shop for the most favorable rate within their market based on available supplies and the magnitude and immediacy of their demand. Through this consumer decision making, the most competitive provider is likely to be the most successful, unless they provide at a loss, in which case, the provider most likely eventually goes bankrupt which can cost the whole system money. Although honest providers would not likely do this, providing at a loss can run other providers that cannot sustain the equivalent loss out of the provision market. The nature of big business is that it has little or no element of compassion for the competition.

External elements can affect the market such as tax laws, legal privileges and wage dictatorships. We live in a market where many elements of business can be separated through legal privileges creating different forms of business. A corporation is a business that separates those who benefit from the provision of business, (Investors) from the risks of loss associated with business activity.  A person providing business services on their own takes full business risk and thus is at a decided disadvantage to the corporate investor even though they are actually doing the work that generates their own gain and the investor is not.

The privilege given to corporate investors enables the business they profit from to risk greater loss than the individual conducting business since the investors never take the risks. If the business fails, the most the investor loses is his or her investment. The business can file bankruptcy and the government, (tax payers) and market will pick up the costs.  Contrarily if a person conducting business on their own fails, they can loose everything they own and more. There are other advantages corporations (and their investors) enjoy that individuals doing business do not; corporations set the compensation rate of their employees based on the ability to give investors (who take no business risk) a gain. This is a wage dictatorship.

Through mechanizing, outsourcing, importing and keeping compensation in a market to a minimum, they can force the compensatory value of the market for human energy down below the market’s capacity to sustainl. The individual conducting business ultimately cannot compete. So as you should see, we do not live in a free market because advantage is given to the corporate form of business. We do not live in a free market because in a free market, the providers set the rate of exchange. In corporate employment, the laborers are the providers yet they do not set their rate of exchange, the corporation is the consumer and it sets the rate of exchange based on the ability to generate profit for investors.

That our labor system is not a free market system is obvious. That systemic reward for providers is arbitrarily based in favor of the sustained winnings of the mere gambler is also. So long as the class war enabled through this non-free market system is waged by investors through corporations against laborers, there will be no free market or wide spread economic prosperity. It is not that the politicians don’t understand this, they do. The allegiance to the money that is pumped through this abomination perpetuates a slave market for human labor. Capitalism is not the problem, corporate capitalism and its influence on government is the entire problem.

Recyclesculptor.