This definition of atheism have drawn from the work Catholic dogma, written by theologian Andrew Coll. This is an old textbook for the fifth year of high school, adjusted for approved religious questionnaire in 1939. Seventy years have passed and still, in the XXI century, many people share this very negative impression of atheists. It follows a binomial setting between atheism and immorality, which arose from the belief that in a world without God can not be genuine moral principles. "Philosophers like Plato and Thomas Aquinas argued that atheism was inherently dangerous to the social and political culture and, therefore, should be punished as a crime against society as a whole. They felt we had to exclude atheists from the political re-education to the force and even in some cases sentenced to death ", says law professor Steven G. Gey. In fact, the persecution of atheists, because they are considered a serious threat to civic virtue, have lasted well into the nineteenth century. Were denied civil and political rights enjoyed by believers. In England, they could not testify at trial or hold a parliamentary seat. But if we look to the United States found that there have not things changed much, although it is constitutionally a secular nation. Atheists are ostracized socially and politically, because the population is mostly religious and therefore there is enormous pressure to Christian beliefs can not be affected least. George Bush Sr. in an interview he conducted the journalist Robert Sherman, said: "I think that atheists should not be considered citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is a nation that is under God . Thus, American atheists feel marginalized, threatened and persecuted. They are not even considered in the Constitution, since it only protects the rights and freedoms of believers. Atheism is seen as a social evil, but in several public polls conducted in the United States found that those most opposed to the death penalty and military interventions abroad are atheists.
Is there any factual basis to support the claim that the atheist is an immoral person, or is this an old prejudice without foundation? ... Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi, Professor of Psychology at the University of Haifa, makes a thorough study in 'Atheist: a psychological profile', concluding that: "Atheists are less domineering and manipulative, less dogmatic, less prejudiced, more tolerant, law-abiding, compassionate, aware and have received better training. They are highly intelligent and many are engaged in teaching or academic life. In short: we would like them to neighbors . If so, it seems that Dostoevsky was not quite right when he said: "If God does not exist, everything is permitted" . Moreover, history has to show that religions, who have defended the existence of God and continue to boast high divine moral fact, the clergy stands in moral authority, have given rise to the most heinous crimes. They have not been able to contribute to the pacification of the people but to cause serious conflicts between them, creating more division than unity and destabilize the foundations of society. The wars of religion, with its obvious political overtones, have caused millions of deaths. Far from preventing war, often religions have driven or supported to achieve their theocratic ends and preserve their privileges, regardless of gore. Not to mention the moral corruption of many religious men, like those pedophile priests whose ignominious abuse minors have raised a great scandal in recent years (there have one of the most disastrous consequences of the brutal sexual repression resulting from the Catholic moral). Do you have served as something to those priests moral precepts of religion and faith in God to be better people? Absolutely. So I say unlike Dostoevsky if atheism does not exist, everything is permitted ...
THE INQUISITION AND METHODS foolproof "MORALES" No more is required to view statistics to prove the fallacy that atheism is associated with immorality. Fox and Levin (2000) and Fanjzylber et al. (2002) showed that countries with higher homicide rates were all very religious atheism levels little or no statistically significant. In contrast, countries with the lowest homicide rates tend to be secular countries with high levels of atheism. Data have been corroborated by various criminological studies determined that non-religious people and those that do not belong to any church show lower rates of criminality (Lombroso, 1911; Bonger, 1943; Von Hentig, 1948). Regarding gender equality, countries with high rates of atheism are the most egalitarian of the world, contrary to what happens to the most religious countries, they are more discriminating. The countries where atheism is more (such as Sweden and Denmark) have more women in parliament, while countries with fewer women in their parliaments are more religious (such as Pakistan and Nigeria). In Human Development Report (2004) United Nations, we see that the countries that occupy the top positions in terms of human development (life expectancy, literacy rates, educational achievements, etc..) Are Norway, Sweden, Australia, Canada and the Netherlands. However, in all recorded high levels of atheism. While countries at the bottom of the list no statistically significant percentages of atheism. Phil Zuckerman, professor of sociology at Pitzer College, concludes from this that "countries with higher levels of atheism are enjoying better social health, while societies characterized by the absence of atheism are less healthy societies" . These data should make us reflect ...
There are many people supporting their morality in the Bible. Consider that your pages contain a supreme moral as it has been revealed by God's will. So many parents allow their children to be educated and trained as a people through biblical teachings, believing that there is no better moral guidance. However, when we consult certain passages of the Old Testament, we are extremely aware that the kind of moral demands that God almighty and merciful (?) In which millions of people believe. For example, in Deuteronomy 21, 18-21 , we read: "If you have a stubborn and rebellious son who will not hear the voice of his father or his mother and even after it has been punished, nor obeys ( ...) Then all his citizens stoned to kill him ". In Leviticus 20.13 : "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both commit an abomination and will be punished with death, his blood fall upon them" . In Numbers 15, 32-36 : "When the children of Israel were in the wilderness, a man caught gathering firewood on Saturday (...) The LORD said to Moses: 'This man must die, be stoned by the whole community outside the camp. " The whole community did leave the camp and stoned him to death, as Yahweh had prescribed to Moses ". And that God is the model of perfection? ... "Intolerance and the spirit of persecution is the essence of all that has a Christian sect based on: a cruel God, in part, that is irritated by the opinions of men, can not agree with a sweet and humane religion ", said the great philosopher Baron d'Holbach. Lean certainly examples of God's terrible (2008), magnificent work of journalist Pepe Rodriguez examines in detail the sadistic behavior, vengeful, righteous and jealous of a God who has guided Western culture for centuries. The New Testament is not free from immoral acts be justified by faith. Even Jesus himself behave sometimes avoided in a way that today call immoral. The contempt and indifference with which his mother used to treat are not characteristic of a good son. His threats and insults to those who did not share their opinions or questioning his prophetic and messianic were excessive for a supposedly righteous and devout man. Not to mention the joy announcing that sinners would be thrown into a fiery furnace. Even looked good the death penalty for those who curse their parents. And his violent attitude towards the merchants who made their living near the temple is not exactly leading by example. In addition, required actions are not very ethical but rather sectarian, then create serious family breakdown. Read what it says on Matthew, 10, 34-38 : "Think not that I came to bring peace on earth: I came not to bring peace but a sword. For I came to separate man from his father, the daughter of his mother, the daughter of his mother. Enemies of man, in his house. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of me, and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of me, and he that taketh not his cross and still is not worthy of me ". Something like also read Luke 14, 26 : "If anyone comes to me and hate not his father and mother, his wife and children, brothers and sisters and even his own life, can be my disciple ".
Is it, therefore, useful biblical morality for society? Does it contribute anything of religion in man's moral progress? ... The biologist Richard Dawkins is quite clear: "The Bible is not the kind of book that one would give to their children to form their morals (...) Do people who use the Bible as an inspiration to moral rectitude the slightest notion of what is actually written in it? ". Honestly, I would not trust someone who claims to be a faithful follower of the biblical precepts. I would like a very dangerous subject. We know how they spend the fundamentalist Christians when put into practice his radical ideas inspired by the Bible. In that sense, they are not opposed to Islamic fundamentalists, whose sacred book, the Koran is also saturated with divine precepts reprehensible. In the name of God or Allah will continue to commit the greatest atrocities. And worst of all is that the perpetrators of these acts are people who if they had not been overly influenced by religion, which acts as a drug neuron-lethal poisoning would never have been able to commit. As noted by the physicist Steven Weinberg: "Good people do good things and bad people do bad things. But for good people to do bad things takes religion ". Therefore, it is faith that inspires this kind of violence, not human nature per se, as they want us to believe those who try by all means to exculpate the religion of being the cause of so much horror. Human nature, no matter how dark it is, does not make a group of middle-class men, parents and a good cultural training one day decide to kidnap several aircraft to crash into buildings full of innocent people, sacrificing themselves in the action themselves. Quranic promise of a heavenly paradise and the sanctity of jihad (holy war) stimuli themselves are sufficient for the fundamentalist Muslim, convinced of being a chosen of Allah, be motivated by a powerful impulse sectarian and not weigh the consequences destructive blind faith or the amount of suffering caused by their heinous act. "Believers! Make them war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites who dwell among you. Rise up to them harshly. Know that Allah is with the righteous ", we read in the Qur'an (9:73). The terrorist attack the 11-S can be justified fully making use of the holy book of Islam, just as they justified their torture inquisitors against heretics by resorting to a biblical text. There are plenty of passages in both books to be interpreted literally by any religious fanatic who decides at any given time a suicide attack believed to act by divine design. In his book Why I Am Not Muslim, Ibn Warraq (pseudonym of an ex-Muslim academics) states: "Christians and Muslims, all have been guilty of the most appalling cruelty, while there have been thousands of Atheists not only led a blameless life, but have worked selflessly for the good of his fellow ". How right he is! ...
It is advisable, for our sake, would advocate a natural moral totally detached from religion and based on reason. A healthy moral, independent, based on the innate goodness of man, our altruistic instincts and compassion we feel for our fellow-humanitarian aid is the daughter of the Enlightenment, not religion, not a moral dosed by ministers of God, or souls dealers who promise eternal rewards and threatened with eternal punishment if not strictly comply with its mandates. "If people are good only because they fear punishment, and expect a reward, we are indeed a sorry group ", said Einstein. The moral that emerges from there really is harmful. No wonder that moral irrational, unhealthy and deadly, born of fear and coercion, has borne fruit as wicked as the Inquisition or the Crusades. And still today, follow the same moral oppressive misogynistic and homophobic sentiments motivating, restricting individual freedoms and human rights with impunity contravening the most basic.
RELIGIONS NOT CONTRIBUTE TO PEACE OF MAN
"The problem with religious morality is that often leads people to worry about the wrong things, forcing it to make decisions that perpetuate, without, human suffering. See the case of the Catholic Church, is an institution that excommunicated women who want to be priests, but priests excommunicated men who rape children. The Church is more concerned about stopping contraception to stop the genocide. More concerned about gay marriage that nuclear proliferation. When we realize that morality comes to issues of human and animal welfare, we see that the Catholic Church is so much confusion about moral issues and on questions of cosmology. No offers alternative moral framework, provides a framework false , says the philosopher Sam Harris, author of The End of Faith. Religion, Terror, and the future of reason (2004). The atheist does not need God or religion to cultivate moral goodness. It does not become evil and criminal to deny the existence of a transcendent world. Perhaps by accepting its finitude, is more concerned with what's down here, to live the present, because paradise or hell does not expect post-mortem. Unfortunately, many people have not realized that there is life before death. Therefore, the attitude of the atheist is more tolerant and humble the believer, believed to hold of a truth revealed by God and lives convinced that their faith is a divine grace. More than one has told me: "I will pray for you so that you may regain faith . What a pride! ... But beware, being an atheist does not mean neglecting the spiritual, sacred music, religious art ... The atheist can enjoy reading at San Juan de la Cruz, studying the Gnostic gospels or investigating the world of miracle-popular and mystical phenomena , as in my case. Their struggle is against obscurantism, superstition, bigotry and religious fallacies. "Spirituality is too important to be left fundamentalism" says atheist philosopher André Comte-Sponville. In his work The soul of atheism (2006), proposes a lay spirituality without God, without dogma and without the Church. "Lack of religion is not a reason to abandon any spiritual life" he warns. Learn to distinguish between religion and spirituality. They are two very different things. Of course an atheist can live a spiritual life without attachment to the material, but is a staunch advocate of philosophical materialism. Even usually have more knowledge of religion that religious people, as demonstrated by a recent survey. Perhaps the problem by studying religious background, approach it from a rational approach, has resulted eventually in atheism. And that's fine! In fact, was what happened to me ... However, there are many believers who have the Bible as an ornament on a shelf. Have you ever taken a look. Ignore the fundamentals of their own beliefs. They know nothing about theology or know the origins of Christianity. His religious convictions are not based on any intellectual thoughts, but that they have inherited from the family and the environment. "The family and school are the two major pillars that help spread the virus of religion in society (...) In childhood, when minds are more open and more malleable, is when it is easier to inoculate the belief in God ", say the historian Gabriel García Volta and Joan Carles Marset geologist in probably no God (2009). Moreover, there are many believers in the faith comfortably installed that are not attracted by some profound questions of life, nor the search for truth, and the mysteries that surround us, not by philosophical reflection, not for knowledge scientific and even by the immense pleasure of being seen the sky in all its glory, making things feel dwarfed by the gigantic universe on which we ignore so much (there is some mystique around that and not me as strange that Nietzsche said: "I'm mystical and not believe in anything" ). In short, we believe people of faith because occasionally attend Mass, go to see the Holy Week processions and pray quite often, but really live far away from spirituality. Do not even care about the welfare of their fellows. Faith in God does not make them virtuous and wise. And you do not need any faith to know how to choose love instead of hatred, justice instead of injustice, peace instead of violence, generosity rather than selfishness. No one steals or murders for losing the faith! And no one practices more charity for having faith! ... There are many caring people who do not act motivated by a religious impulse, but to help humanity their peers. And this he is right. "All these rules came to his people long before any contact with the great monotheistic religions, which suggests that moral knowledge comes from revelation, but from the experiences of human beings to live together, they have shown that their behavior must be adjusted according to the rights of others, " philosopher Elizabeth Anderson explains in his excellent essay 'If He s dead," everything is permitted? ".
is abundantly demonstrated that all morality comes from religion is harmful and contrary to nature. Does not contribute to human happiness, because of its repressive and alienating. It is also incompatible with reason and human progress. Certainly the moral standards that are extracted from the divine laws are insane. There is no special virtue in what we call faith, because it is seen that it can become a dangerous weapon to commit all sorts of cruelties. "I am as firmly convinced that religions do harm as I am that are false," said the philosopher Bertrand Russell. I endorse his words. Secular or secular humanism would be, from my point of view, an effective antidote to ensure ethical peaceful and tolerant, to share a sense of moral and social responsibility, and to mitigate the harmful effects that religious fanaticism that now more that has never become a serious threat to human survival. The philosopher Michel Onfray offers the solution to the problem: "Deconstructing the monotheistic religions, to demystify Judeo-Christianity, Islam, too, of course, then remove the theocracy, these are the three tasks for atheology opening. From these it will be possible to develop a new ethical and create conditions in the West for a truly post-Christian morality in which the body ceases to be a punishment and the world a vale of tears, life catastrophe, pleasure a sin, a curse women, a presumption of intelligence and a voluptuous sentence ". Without doubt, we need a rational moral and critical faculties to curb the dogmatic faith that still tries to act as a control mechanism in a plural and democratic society that aspires to its final secularization. You have to remove the Judeo-Christian morality, castrating and abuse which continues to revolve around old theological chimeras if we enjoy the freedoms and equalities that secularism offers and consciously take charge of our own destiny, forever abandoning the ridiculous metaphysical fears that subjugated the human being from the dawn of time. The efforts of enlightened thinking to conquer the intellectual and moral freedom continues. And at stake is human dignity. It is time, therefore, know how to choose: either the light of reason or the darkness of religion. So I think the XXII century will be an atheist or not ...
0 comments:
Post a Comment